| Page Range | 11659-11999 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 11999 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela | |
| 81 FR 11997 - Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government | |
| 81 FR 11844 - Sunshine Act Cancellation Notice-OPIC March 9, 2016 Public Hearing | |
| 81 FR 11874 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Global by Design: Chinese Ceramics From the R. Albuquerque Collection” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 11844 - Committee Management; Renewals | |
| 81 FR 11801 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 81 FR 11834 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface Commingling, and Security; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11791 - Imidacloprid Registration Review; Draft Pollinator Ecological Risk Assessment; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 11706 - Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update | |
| 81 FR 11681 - Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment | |
| 81 FR 11770 - Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Literacy Outcomes for English Learners With Disabilities in Grades Three Through Five or Three Through Six | |
| 81 FR 11763 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11741 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 38A; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC; (Motor Vehicle Body Parts and Lithium-Ion Batteries); Spartanburg, South Carolina | |
| 81 FR 11754 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
| 81 FR 11744 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the United Kingdom: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
| 81 FR 11757 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination | |
| 81 FR 11747 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Japan: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 81 FR 11741 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
| 81 FR 11751 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 81 FR 11762 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0104, Exemption for Swaps Between Affiliates | |
| 81 FR 11837 - Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From China | |
| 81 FR 11764 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 81 FR 11668 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ | |
| 81 FR 11739 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11738 - Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of the Products of Biotechnology | |
| 81 FR 11760 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11762 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11833 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in the Northeast Region; Draft Long Range Transportation Plan | |
| 81 FR 11686 - Coordination of Federal Authorizations for Electric Transmission Facilities; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11769 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11815 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11665 - TRICARE; Revision of Nonparticipating Providers Reimbursement Rate; Removal of Cost Share for Dental Sealants; TRICARE Dental Program | |
| 81 FR 11764 - U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11845 - New Postal Product | |
| 81 FR 11779 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 81 FR 11778 - International Energy Agency Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11791 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 11763 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11876 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 81 FR 11875 - Notification of Changes to the Definition of a High Risk Motor Carrier and Associated Investigation Procedures | |
| 81 FR 11902 - Columbia Body Manufacturing Co.; Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 224 | |
| 81 FR 11698 - Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children | |
| 81 FR 11739 - Dixie Resource Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11874 - Railroad Cost of Capital-2015 | |
| 81 FR 11804 - Mechanistic Oral Absorption Modeling and Simulation for Formulation Development and Bioequivalence Evaluation; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 81 FR 11811 - Environmental Assessment: Questions and Answers Regarding Drugs With Estrogenic, Androgenic, or Thyroid Activity; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 81 FR 11832 - Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11790 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 81 FR 11789 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 81 FR 11788 - Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request for Waiver | |
| 81 FR 11788 - General Electric Company, Aclara Meters LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 81 FR 11780 - Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Extension and Amendment of Settlement | |
| 81 FR 11781 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-538, FERC-740, FERC-729, FERC-715, FERC-592, FERC-60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A); Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11789 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 81 FR 11785 - Port Barre Investments, LLC (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage); Notice of Application | |
| 81 FR 11779 - Constitution Pipeline; Company, LLC; Notice Rejecting Request for Emergency Motion for Suspension of Non-Mechanical Tree Felling | |
| 81 FR 11786 - Stephen Kohlhase, v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Complaint | |
| 81 FR 11786 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 11780 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 81 FR 11788 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 11813 - A Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter II. Identity Statement; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 81 FR 11807 - Clinical Considerations for Investigational Device Exemptions for Neurological Devices Targeting Disease Progression and Clinical Outcomes; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 81 FR 11810 - Medical Devices and Clinical Trial Design for the Treatment or Improvement in the Appearance of Fungally-Infected Nails; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 81 FR 11664 - New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Removal of Obsolete and Redundant Regulations | |
| 81 FR 11813 - Canned Tuna Deviating From Identity Standard: Temporary Permit for Market Testing | |
| 81 FR 11796 - Submission for OMB Review; Price Redetermination | |
| 81 FR 11795 - Information Collection; Prompt Payment | |
| 81 FR 11794 - Information Collection; Quality Assurance Requirements | |
| 81 FR 11663 - Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 11800 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 81 FR 11796 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 81 FR 11839 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Gamma Radiation Surveys | |
| 81 FR 11839 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Work-Study Program of the Child Labor Regulations | |
| 81 FR 11838 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Young Offenders Grants | |
| 81 FR 11840 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Call Center Final Assessment Guide | |
| 81 FR 11798 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 81 FR 11841 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 81 FR 11815 - Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11837 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; FEL Out of Business Records | |
| 81 FR 11804 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) Program Outcome Measurement | |
| 81 FR 11803 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Standardized Data Collection | |
| 81 FR 11846 - New Postal Product | |
| 81 FR 11818 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11819 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11817 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11818 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11820 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11819 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 11816 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11817 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 11846 - Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust; Notice of Application | |
| 81 FR 11851 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 4554 (Alternative Trading Systems-Recording and Reporting Requirements of Order and Execution Information for NMS Stocks) | |
| 81 FR 11870 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 7.21, Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders | |
| 81 FR 11856 - Order Granting Exemptions From Certain Provisions of Rule 613 Pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |
| 81 FR 11872 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Limit Order Protection and Market Order Protection | |
| 81 FR 11872 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Limit Order Protection and Market Order Protection | |
| 81 FR 11850 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Limit Order Protection and Market Order Protection | |
| 81 FR 11872 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options Platform | |
| 81 FR 11819 - Workshop on Shift Work at Night, Artificial Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration Information; Amended Notice | |
| 81 FR 11727 - Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for Billings, MT 2010 SO2 | |
| 81 FR 11844 - Information Collection Request Submission for OMB Review | |
| 81 FR 11844 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 81 FR 11673 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Base Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 81 FR 11904 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Revision; Submission for OMB Review; Domestic First Lien Residential Mortgage Data | |
| 81 FR 11716 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Base Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 81 FR 11908 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2016 Annual Review and Changes to Methodology | |
| 81 FR 11808 - Donor Screening Recommendations To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Zika Virus by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 81 FR 11738 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 11830 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11826 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11761 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Coast Groundfish Rationalization Sociocultural Study | |
| 81 FR 11824 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11822 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11821 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11792 - Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 81 FR 11697 - Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries | |
| 81 FR 11878 - Agency Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 81 FR 11769 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) | |
| 81 FR 11671 - Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Base Year Emission Inventories for the 20088-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 81 FR 11828 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 81 FR 11726 - Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Base Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 81 FR 11766 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 81 FR 11659 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 81 FR 11695 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Taos, NM | |
| 81 FR 11734 - Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry | |
| 81 FR 11686 - Energy Conservation Program: Certification and Enforcement-Import Data Collection; Notice of Extension of Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 11993 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-87; Small Entity Compliance Guide | |
| 81 FR 11992 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendment | |
| 81 FR 11988 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information on Corporate Contractor Performance and Integrity | |
| 81 FR 11988 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-87; Introduction | |
| 81 FR 11711 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 81 FR 11668 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Revision to Visibility Federal Implementation Plan | |
| 81 FR 11692 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Little Rock, AR | |
| 81 FR 11694 - Proposed Modification of Federal Airway V-506; Kotzebue, AK | |
| 81 FR 11717 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 81 FR 11687 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 11678 - Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order 989 and Referendum Order | |
| 81 FR 11690 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 11944 - Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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), DOT.
Final rule
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016.
Richard A. Dunham, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, March 10, 2016.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the standing advisory committees' regulations to change the name of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology. This action is being taken to reflect the change made to the charter for this advisory committee.
This rule is effective March 7, 2016. The name change became applicable January 22, 2016.
Teresa Hays, Committee Management Officer, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8220.
FDA is announcing that the name of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology, which was established on January 22, 1990, has been changed. The Agency decided that the name “Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee” more accurately describes the subject areas for which the committee is responsible. The committee reviews and evaluates scientific, clinical, and technical issues related to the safety and effectiveness of drug products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases; the quality characteristics that such drugs purport or are represented to have and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility; and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The committee may also review Agency sponsored intramural and extramural biomedical research programs in support of FDA's drug regulatory responsibilities and its critical path initiatives related to improving the efficacy and safety of drugs and improving the efficiency of drug development.
The Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee name was changed in the charter renewal dated January 22, 2016. In this final rule, FDA is revising 21 CFR 14.100(c)(15) to reflect the change.
Publication of this final rule constitutes a final action on this change under the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public procedures and to proceed to an immediately effective regulation. Such notice and procedures are unnecessary and are not in the public interest because the final rule is merely codifying the new name of the advisory committee to reflect the current committee charter.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461, 21 U.S.C. 41-50, 141-149, 321-394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264, Pub. L. 107-109; Pub. L. 108-155; Pub. L. 113-54.
(c) * * *
(15)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is removing regulations that required sponsors to submit data regarding the subtherapeutic use of certain antibiotic, nitrofuran, and sulfonamide drugs administered in animal feed as these regulations have been determined to be obsolete. FDA has other strategies for assessing the safety of antimicrobial new animal drugs with regard to their microbiological effects on bacteria of human health concern, and the only remaining animal drug use listed in these regulations is now listed elsewhere in the new animal drug regulations.
This rule is effective April 6, 2016.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
William T. Flynn, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-1), 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5704, email:
In the
In the same issue of the
The Agency received only one set of comments on the 2003 proposed rule, from Pennfield Oil Co. (Pennfield). At that time, Pennfield was the sponsor of NADA 141-137, a bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) Type A medicated article that is listed in the table in § 558.15(g)(1). In the table, the listing is under Fermenta Animal Health Co., which was a predecessor in interest to Pennfield. In response to the NOOH, Pennfield submitted a hearing request regarding this product. In its comments on the 2003 proposed rule, Pennfield objected to the removal of § 558.15 until the issues in the NOOH were addressed. It argued that the BMD listing in § 558.15 provides evidence of Pennfield's approval, and that removal of that section, without updating the BMD listing in part 558, subpart B, would result in a lack of recognition in the regulations of the approval that Pennfield currently has. Pharmgate LLC (Pharmgate) is the current sponsor of NADA 141-137 (80 FR 13226, March 13, 2015).
For the eight other products and use combinations subject to the NOOH, FDA received supplemental applications with labeling conforming to the relevant findings of effectiveness. FDA approved those applications in 2006 and 2009 and amended part 558 subpart B to reflect those approvals (71 FR 16222 (March 31, 2006); 71 FR 16223 (March 31, 2006); and 74 FR 40723 (August 13, 2009)). Subsequent to those approvals, FDA finalized portions of the 2003 proposed rule by removing from the tables in § 558.15(g) the products and use combinations that were not approved, and the products and use combinations whose approval was reflected in part 558, subpart B (71 FR 16219 (March 31, 2006) and 75 FR 16001 (March 31, 2010)). FDA retained only the listing in the table in § 558.15(g)(1) relating to NADA 141-137 as well as § 558.15(a) through (f). In both the 2006 and 2010 final rules, FDA stated it intended to continue to finalize the proposed rule to remove all of § 558.15.
Recently, Pharmgate filed a supplemental application to NADA 141-137 which provided labeling conforming to the relevant findings of effectiveness announced in the NOOH. FDA approved this supplement on October 6, 2015. Also on October 6, 2015, Pharmgate withdrew the hearing request relating to NADA 141-137. FDA has since published in the
Because the approval of NADA 141-137 is now listed in § 558.76 of subpart B, FDA is removing its associated listing in § 558.15(g)(1) as obsolete. In addition, FDA is finalizing the proposed rule by removing all of the other remaining portions of § 558.15 because they are also obsolete. A conforming change is made in § 558.4.
We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that this final rule does not impose compliance costs on the sponsors of any products that are currently marketed. Further, it does not cause any drugs that are currently marketed to lose their marketing ability. Therefore, FDA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by State, local and tribal
FDA proposed the removal of § 558.15 on August 8, 2003, because it was obsolete or redundant. The original purpose of § 558.15 was to require the submission of the results of studies on the long-term administration of then-marketed antimicrobial drugs in animal feed on the occurrence of multiple drug-resistant bacteria associated with these animals. FDA determined that this section was obsolete as FDA had a new strategy and concept for assessing the safety of antimicrobial new animal drugs, including subtherapeutic use of antimicrobials in animal feed, with regard to their microbiological effects on bacteria of human health concern. This final rule removes the only remaining animal drug use listed in § 558.15(g), which is obsolete since approval of its NADA is now listed elsewhere in part 558.
Only one set of comments to the proposal was received by FDA. Since these comments did not question the benefits as described in the proposed rule, we retain the benefits for the final rule. This final rule is expected to provide greater clarity in the regulations for new animal drugs for use in animal feeds by deleting obsolete provisions in § 558.15. We do not expect this final rule to result in any direct human or animal health benefit. Rather, this final rule would remove regulations that are no longer necessary.
We do not expect the final rule that revokes the remaining portions of § 558.15 to have a substantive effect on any approved new animal drug or to cause any approved new animal drug to lose its marketing ability or experience a loss of sales.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the benefit payment provision for nonparticipating providers to more closely mirror industry practices by requiring TDP nonparticipating providers to be reimbursed (minus the appropriate cost-share) at the lesser of billed charges or the network maximum allowable charge for similar services in that same locality (region) or state. This rule also updates the regulatory provisions regarding dental sealants to clearly categorize them as a preventive service and, consequently, eliminate the current 20 percent cost-share applicable to sealants to conform with the language in the regulation to the statute.
Col James Honey, Defense Health Agency, telephone (703) 681-0039.
Prior to 2006, TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) participating and nonparticipating providers were reimbursed at the equivalent of not less than the 50th percentile of prevailing charges made for similar services in the same locality (region) or state, or the provider's actual charge, whichever is lower, less any cost-share amount due for authorized services. This provision was included in the regulation to constitute a significant financial incentive for participation of providers in the contractor's network and to ensure a network of quality providers through use of a higher reimbursement rate. Over time, the Department discovered that this provision placed an unnecessary burden on contractors with already established, high quality provider networks with reimbursement rates below the 50th percentile that were of sufficient size to meet the access requirements of the TDP. Consequently, the Department of Defense published a final rule in the
Sealants are currently separately defined in the TDP regulation at 32 CFR 199.13(b)(24), and specifically identified as a covered non-preventive service subject to a 20 percent cost-share. The cost-share for dental sealants was originally put in place when there was minimal evidence as to the effectiveness of dental sealants preventing tooth decay. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that dental sealants are effective in preventing tooth decay and the vast majority of commercial dental insurance plans cover this procedure with no cost shares. Further, the American Dental Association's Council on Dental Care Programs Code on Dental Procedures and Nomenclature classifies dental sealants as a preventive procedure. Additionally, the Department currently recognizes sealants as a preventive service under the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program per 32 CFR 199.22(f)(1)(ii)(C). The regulatory revisions regarding dental sealants will delete the separate definition of dental sealants, specifically include sealants as a category of preventive service under 32 CFR 199.13(e)(2)(i)(B), delete any possible inconsistency in the definition of preventive service in 32 CFR 199.13(b)(20) and (e)(2)(i), and update the cost-share table in 32 CFR 199.13(e)(3)(i) to delete the specific line item reference to sealants being subject to a 20 percent cost-share in order to conform with the requirement in 10 U.S.C. 1076a(e)(1)(A) that TDP enrollees pay no charge for preventive services.
This regulation is finalized under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1076a which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish a voluntary enrollment dental plan for eligible dependents of members of the uniformed services who are on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, members of the Individual Ready Reserve, and eligible dependents of members of the Ready Reserve of the reserve components who are not on active duty for more than 30 days.
In this final rule, the regulatory language changes nonparticipating provider (
This final rule is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, making it a substantive, non-significant rule under the Executive Order and the Congressional Review Act. The amendment to transition nonparticipating provider reimbursement to be on an equivalent basis with network reimbursement, will result in (1) a lower allowed-to-billed ratio and a decrease in TDP claim payments, (2) premium decreases for beneficiaries; (3) a corresponding increase in enrollment by eligible beneficiaries as a result of these premium changes; (4) resultant cost savings to the government through reduced premium subsidies; and (5) increased out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries who opt to use a nonparticipating provider who may balance bill for the difference in contractor payment at the current rates and the new, lower network agreement rates. While the requirements for sealant coverage will not change, the removal of beneficiary cost sharing for sealants will result in (1) a marginal increase in sealant utilization, as we anticipate most beneficiaries requiring sealants are currently receiving these services since they remain a relatively inexpensive procedure and are typically viewed as beneficial; (2) a minimal premium increase for beneficiaries; and (3) an increase in government costs as a result of both the direct effect of the waived cost sharing on current sealant services and the full cost of the additional utilization. We estimate that the net effects of the TDP provisions that would be implemented by this rule would result in a net premium decrease for TDP beneficiaries and corresponding cost savings to the government over $17 million per year as well as an anticipated increase in the number of participating network providers.
The TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) allows the Secretary of Defense to offer comprehensive premium based indemnity dental insurance coverage to qualified individuals. The funds used by the TDP are appropriated funds furnished by Congress through annual appropriation acts and funds collected as premium shares from beneficiaries. TDP is delivered through a competitively procured contract awarded by the Director, Defense Health Agency, or designee. TDP enrollees are required to pay all or a portion of the premium cost depending on their status. For those eligible for premium sharing, including active duty dependents and certain Selected Reserve and Individual Reserve members, the portion of premium share to be paid by them is no more than forty (40) percent of the total premium. For those entitled to premium sharing, the Government pays the remaining sixty (60) percent of the premium. Additional information regarding the TDP is available at
Because the amendments to 32 CFR 199.13 will result in changes to the TDP voluntary enrollment dental insurance plan which is administered through a competitively procured contract, these amendments will be incorporated into the next TDP contract and are scheduled to take effect with the start of health care delivery under the next awarded TDP contract (currently anticipated to start February 1, 2017).
We proposed several amendments to the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) regulation. Specifically, we proposed revising the benefit payment provision for nonparticipating providers to more closely mirror industry practices by requiring TDP nonparticipating providers to be reimbursed (minus the appropriate cost-share) at the lesser of (1) billed charges: Or (2) the network maximum allowable charge for similar
The final rule changes the nonparticipating provider (
The proposed rule was published in the
It has been determined that his final rule is not a significant regulatory action. This rule does not:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section of the economy; productivity; completion; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribunal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Orders.
It has been determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
It has been certified that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Set forth in the final rule are minor revisions to the existing regulation. The DoD does not anticipate a significant impact on the Program.
It has been determined that this final rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Act of 1995. Existing information collections requirements of the TRICARE and Medicare programs will be utilized.
It has been determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1) The States;
(2) The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Dental sealants, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4)
(14)
(17)
(20)
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Diagnostic and preventive services. Benefits may be extended for those dental services described as oral examination, diagnostic, and preventive services when performed directly by dentists and dental hygienists as authorized under paragraph (f) of this section. These include the following categories of service:
(B) * * *
(
(f) * * *
(5)
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Nonparticipating providers (or the Beneficiaries or active duty, Selected Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve members for unassigned claims) shall be reimbursed at the lesser of the provider's actual charge: Or the network maximum allowable charge for similar services for that same locality (region) or state, whichever is lower, subject to the exception listed in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, less any cost-share amount due for authorized services. The network maximum allowable charge is the maximum negotiated fee between the dental contractor and any TDP participating provider for similar services covered by the dental plan in that same locality (region) or state.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the PATH Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.0, at Jersey City, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace rails and ties at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed on Saturdays through Mondays for twenty-six consecutive weekends.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 19, 2016 to 12:01 a.m. on September 12, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0150] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, email
The PATH railroad bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.0, at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.723.
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.
The bridge owner, Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH), requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate replacement of the rails and ties at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the PATH railroad bridge may remain in the closed position for twenty-six weekends, between 12:01 a.m. on Saturdays through 12:01 a.m. on Mondays from March 19, 2016 through September 12, 2016.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the Minnesota Federal implementation plan (FIP) for visibility, to establish emission limits for Northern States Power Company's (NSP's) Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco), pursuant to a settlement agreement. The settlement
This final rule is effective on April 6, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0592. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067,
This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Section 169A of the Clean Air Act provides for a visibility protection program and sets forth as a national goal “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” Pursuant to these statutory requirements, EPA promulgated regulations entitled “Visibility Protection” in subpart P of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), specifically in 40 CFR 51.300
Pursuant to these regulations, the Department of the Interior (DOI) sent EPA a letter dated October 21, 2009, certifying the existence of RAVI at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National Parks and citing modeling results from Minnesota's regional haze plan in support of a view that Sherco is a source of RAVI in these areas. After three years passed, a group of three environmental groups filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA had an obligation to evaluate whether Sherco was a source of this RAVI and if so to promulgate requirements to address this RAVI. EPA, the environmental groups, and NSP then held settlement discussions leading to a settlement agreement that became final on July 24, 2015.
In the settlement agreement, EPA agreed to propose specific emission limits, and propose to conclude that these limits addressed the concern identified by DOI, such that no need existed for any review of whether Sherco is a RAVI source or whether best available retrofit technology (BART) at Sherco is warranted for addressing RAVI. On August 11, 2015, DOI wrote to EPA regarding the settlement agreement, stating that “the settlement achieves an outcome that addresses our visibility concerns at Voyageurs and Isle Royale National Parks.” EPA published its notice of proposed rulemaking on October 27, 2015, at 80 FR 65675. The notice provides further details regarding the RAVI regulations, the background and history of settlement discussions for Sherco, and the limits that EPA proposed.
EPA received no comments on its proposed rule, and EPA has received no new information that would warrant promulgating a rule differing in any way from the proposed rule.
EPA is promulgating the emission limits for Sherco that were identified in the settlement agreement signed on May 15, 2015, by representatives of EPA, three environmental groups, and NSP. Specifically, EPA is promulgating the following limits:
Additionally, in light of DOI's August 11, 2015, letter, EPA is concluding that the incorporation of these SO
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. Because the FIP applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. EPA's rule adds additional controls to a certain source. The Regional Haze FIP revisions that EPA is promulgating here would
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA did discuss this action in a July 16, 2015, conference call with Michigan and Minnesota tribes, and EPA invited further comment from tribes that may be interested in this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. However, to the extent this rule will limit emissions of SO
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, visibility protection.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e)(1) On and after the 30-boiler-operating-day period ending on September 30, 2015, the owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not cause or permit the emission of SO
(2) On and after the 30-boiler-operating-day period ending on May 31, 2017, the owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not cause or permit the emission of SO
(3) The owners and operators of the facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall operate continuous SO
(4) For each boiler operating day, compliance with the 30-day average limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section shall be determined by summing total emissions in pounds for the period consisting of the day and the preceding 29 successive boiler operating days, summing total heat input in MMBTU for the same period, and computing the ratio of these sums in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is used to mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the entire 24-hour period. A boiler operating day with respect to the limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall be a day in which fuel is combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. Bias adjustments provided for under 40 CFR 75 appendix A shall be applied. Substitute data provided for under 40 CFR 75 subpart D shall not be used.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on September 3, 2014, to address emission inventory requirements for the Illinois portions of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois (MO-IL) ozone nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires emission inventories for all ozone nonattainment areas. The emission inventories contained in Illinois' September 3, 2014, submission meet this CAA requirement.
This direct final rule will be effective May 6, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 6, 2016. If adverse comments are received by EPA, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0664 at
Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1), require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions, emission inventories for all areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. An emission inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone in an area. Ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
The emission inventories provide emissions data for a variety of air quality planning tasks, including establishing baseline emission levels, calculating emission reduction targets needed to attain the NAAQS, determining emission inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking emissions over time to determine progress toward achieving air quality and emission reduction goals. As stated above, the CAA requires the states to submit emission inventories for areas designated as nonattainment for ozone. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has recommended that states use 2011 as a base year for the emission estimates (78 FR 34178, 34190, June 6, 2013). However, EPA also allows states to submit base year emissions for other years during a recent ozone standard violation period. States are required to submit estimates of VOC and NO
Illinois submitted a SIP revision addressing the VOC and NO
As recommended by the EPA, the IEPA has selected 2011 as the base year for the submitted emission inventories.
Illinois estimated VOC (Volatile Organic Material (VOM) in the Illinois emission inventory
The primary source of emissions data for point sources was the source-reported 2011 Annual Emission Reports (AERs) (emission statements). Under Illinois state law covering emission statement requirements at 35 Illinois Administrative Code part 254, major sources are required to report emissions annually to the state. The emissions reported to the state for 2011 were the primary source of facility-emissions, which were further divided into source category-specific emission totals by county/township.
Area source emissions were generally calculated by multiplying source category-specific emission factors by 2011 source activity levels (population, employment levels, etc.) for each county or township. In some cases, 2011 area source category emissions were projected from 2010 emissions using estimated source category-specific growth rates.
On-road mobile source emissions were estimated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator model and vehicle activity levels provided by the state Department of Transportation and local planning agencies.
Off-road emissions were estimated using the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). These emission estimates were supplemented with emission estimates for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels provided through contractor studies since NMIM does not cover these source types.
EPA has reviewed Illinois' September 3, 2014, requested SIP revision for consistency with CAA and EPA emission inventory requirements. In particular, EPA has reviewed the techniques used by IEPA to derive and quality assure the emission estimates. EPA has also evaluated whether Illinois provided the public with the opportunity to review and comment on the development of the emission estimates and whether IEPA addressed public comments.
IEPA documented the general procedures used to estimate the emissions for each of the four major source types and for some specific source types for the off-road emissions. The documentation of the emission estimation procedures was adequate for us to determine that Illinois followed acceptable procedures to estimate the emissions.
Illinois developed a quality assurance plan and followed this plan during various phases of the emissions estimation and documentation process to quality assure the emissions for completeness and accuracy. These quality assurance procedures are summarized in the documentation describing how the emissions totals were developed. We have determined that the quality assurance procedures followed by Illinois are adequate and acceptable and that Illinois has developed inventories of VOC and NO
IEPA notified the public of the opportunity for comment both in newspapers and on IEPA's Web site. No comments were received on the emission inventories and no public hearing was requested.
We are approving the Illinois SIP revision submitted to address the emission inventory requirements for the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The emission inventories we are approving into the SIP are specified in Tables 1 and 2 above. We are approving the emission inventories because they contain comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions for all relevant sources in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and because Illinois adopted the emission inventories after providing for reasonable public notice and the opportunity for public hearings.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(pp) On September 3, 2014, Illinois submitted 2011 volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen emission inventories for the Illinois portions of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard as a revision of the Illinois state implementation plan. The emission inventories are approved as a revision of the state's implementation plan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on November 14, 2014, to address emission inventory requirements for the Sheboygan nonattainment area (Sheboygan area) and the Wisconsin portion (Kenosha area) of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI) nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires emission inventories for all ozone nonattainment areas. The emission inventories contained in Wisconsin's November 14, 2014, submission meet this CAA requirement.
This direct final rule is effective on May 6, 2016, unless the EPA receives
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0860 at
Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1), require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions, emission inventories for all areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. An emission inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone in an area. Ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
The emission inventories provide emissions data for a variety of air quality planning tasks, including establishing baseline emission levels for anthropogenic (manmade) emissions associated with ozone standard violations, calculating emission reduction targets needed to attain the NAAQS and achieving reasonable further progress toward attainment of the ozone standard (not required in the areas considered here), determining emission inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking emissions over time to determine progress toward achieving air quality and emission reduction goals. As stated above, the CAA requires the states to submit emission inventories for areas designated as nonattainment for ozone. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has recommended that states submit typical summer day emission estimates for 2011 (78 FR 34178, 34190, June 6, 2013). However, EPA also allows states to submit base year emissions for other years during a recent ozone standard violation period. States are required to submit estimates of VOC and NO
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the 2011 VOC and NO
WDNR chose 2011 as the base year for these emission inventories, as recommended by EPA.
The point source NO
The 2011 area source emissions were derived using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 2, emission estimates for Sheboygan and Kenosha Counties. The area source emissions data have been derived for each appropriate Source Classification Code (SCC) covered by the NEI for Sheboygan and Kenosha Counties. The WDNR used various source surrogate data, such as population, land use data, and employment source sector or SCC, to allocate the area source emissions to the nonattainment portion of Kenosha County. The emission inventory documentation contained in Appendix 5 of Wisconsin's submittal includes documentation explaining how the emissions were derived for each area source type.
On-road mobile source emissions were determined using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), version MOVES2010b, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and other vehicle class-specific data supplied by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission (BLRPC), the metropolitan planning organizations that cover the two ozone nonattainment areas, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Non-road mobile source emissions were derived by dividing the various area source types into two groups: (1) Commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and railroads (collectively referred to as MAR); and (2) all other non-road source types. For the aircraft and railroad components of the MAR, the WDNR relied on the emissions for these source types contained in EPA's 2011 NEI, version 1. For commercial marine vessel emissions, the WDNR used emissions derived by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), but used the county-specific commercial marine vessel emissions in the 2011 NEI to allocate the LADCO-supplied commercial marine vessel emissions to the Sheboygan and Kenosha ozone nonattainment areas. For the non-MAR area source emissions, the WDNR used the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) to generate annual and summer day NO
To quality assure (QA) and quality check (QC) the emission estimates, the WDNR developed a quality assurance plan. This plan was applied for each source category and source type to ensure accuracy, completeness, comparability, and representativeness of the estimated emissions. One of the major quality assurance procedures employed was the comparison of the calculated emissions to emissions data contained in the 2011 NEI.
EPA has reviewed Wisconsin's November 14, 2014, requested SIP revision for consistency with CAA and EPA emission inventory requirements. In particular, EPA has reviewed the techniques used by the WDNR to derive and quality assure the emission estimates. EPA has also determined whether Wisconsin has provided the public with the opportunity to review and comment on the development of the emission estimates and whether the State has addressed all public comments.
The State documented the general procedures used to estimate the emissions for each of the major source types. The documentation of the emission estimation procedures is adequate for us to determine that Wisconsin followed acceptable procedures to estimate the emissions.
As noted above, WDNR developed a quality assurance plan and followed this plan during various phases of the emissions estimation and documentation process to QA and QC the emissions for completeness and accuracy. The quality assurance procedures have been determined to be adequate and acceptable. We conclude that Wisconsin has developed inventories of VOC and NO
WDNR notified the public of the opportunity for comment both in newspapers and on the WDNR Web site. A public hearing was held on September 25, 2014, and WDNR provided for the review of written comments received outside of the public hearing. The only comments received were those from EPA, and WDNR addressed those comments through revisions reflected in the final emission inventories and associated documentation.
We are approving a Wisconsin SIP revision submitted to address the ozone-related emission inventory requirements for the Sheboygan and Kenosha areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The emission inventories we are approving into the SIP are specified in Tables 1 and 2 above. We are approving the emission inventories because they contain comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions for all relevant VOC and NO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and it shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(dd) On November 14, 2014, Wisconsin submitted 2011 volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen emission inventories for the Sheboygan County and Wisconsin portion (Kenosha area) of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard as a revision of the Wisconsin state implementation plan. The documented emission inventories are approved as a revision of the State's implementation plan.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and referendum order.
This rule proposes two amendments to Marketing Order No. 989 (order), which regulates the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California and provides producers with the opportunity to vote in a referendum to determine if they favor the changes. These amendments were proposed by the Raisin Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for the local administration of the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of raisins operating within the production area. These proposed amendments are intended to improve administration of the order and reflect current industry practices.
The referendum will be conducted from March 9, 2016, through March 23, 2016. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015.
Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237.
Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Michelle P. Sharrow, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Antoinette Carter, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 989, as amended (7 CFR part 989), regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposal is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill)(Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.
AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposals are not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendments is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order.
The proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting held on October 2, 2014.
A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendments was issued on October 15, 2015, and published in the
The Committee's proposed amendments would amend the order by: (1) Authorizing the Committee to borrow from a commercial lending institution during times of cash shortage to help ensure continuity of operations during the first half of the year before assessment income is received, and (2) Establishing a monetary reserve equal to one year's budgeted expenses.
Section 989.80 of the order, Assessments, authorizes the Committee to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program.
This proposal would provide the Committee with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution during times of cash shortages. Since inception of the marketing order, the Committee has occasionally used the order's volume regulation provisions to pool a portion of the annual raisin crop
Volume regulation has not been in effect under the marketing order since 2010, and the Committee has been returning equity payments to the growers who contributed raisins to the 2009 reserve raisin pool. Therefore, funds from the reserve raisin pool are no longer available for the Committee to use during times of cash shortages. The Committee's proposed amendment to the order would allow it to borrow from a commercial lending institution when no other funding is available. This would assist the Committee in bridging finances from the end of one fiscal year through the first quarter of the new fiscal year, before assessments on the new crop are received.
Additionally, the Committee has received grants from the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) Market Access Program (MAP) since 1995 to conduct market expansion and development activities in various international markets. Under MAP, participants must first use their own resources for activities and request reimbursement from FAS. Sometimes there is a time-lag between submission of reimbursement requests and receipt of payments, which causes budgeting issues. Having authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution would help to ensure continuity of operations when this occurs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 989.80, Assessments, be amended by adding a sentence in paragraph (c) that would provide the Committee with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution.
Section 989.81 of the order, Accounting, authorizes the Committee to credit or refund unexpended assessment funds from the crop year back to the handlers from whom they were collected. Currently, the order doesn't allow the Committee to retain handler assessments from prior crop years.
This proposal would allow the Committee to establish a monetary reserve equal to one year's operational expenses as averaged over the past six years. Reserve funds could be used for specific administrative and overhead expenses such as staff wages, salaries and related benefits, office rent, utilities, postage, insurance, legal expenses, and audit costs; to cover deficits incurred during any period when assessment income is less than expenses; to defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of the order are suspended; liquidation of the order; and other expenses recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary. Reserve funds could not be used for promotional expenses during any crop year prior to the time that assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses.
As previously stated in Proposal #1, the Committee borrowed cash from the reserve raisin pool and repaid it with interest when handler assessment cash shortages occurred in the past. This practice helped the Committee to bridge finances from one fiscal crop year to the next until assessment income for the new crop year was received. This option is no longer available.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 989.81, Accounting, be amended to allow the Committee to retain excess assessment funds for the purpose of establishing a monetary reserve equal to one year's budgeted expenses as averaged over the past six years. Such excess funds could only be used for specific administrative and operational expenses as outlined in the order.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 3,000 producers of California raisins and approximately 28 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based upon information provided by the Committee, it may be concluded that a majority of producers and approximately 18 handlers of California raisins may be classified as small entities.
The amendments proposed by the Committee would authorize the Committee to borrow from commercial lending institutions and to establish a monetary reserve fund equal to one year's budgeted expenses. This would help to ensure proper management and funding of the program.
The Committee reviewed and identified a yearly budget that would be necessary to continue program operations in the absence of a reserve pool. Based on this budget, the Committee believes a monetary reserve of approximately $2 million would be sufficient to continue operations. The anticipated $2 million to be accumulated in a monetary reserve would not be accrued in one crop year. It would be spread over several years, depending on expenses, assessment revenue, and excess handler assessments accrued in each crop year. For example: If excess annual handler assessments amount to $400,000, it would take five years to accrue $2 million. Currently, the average excess handler assessments paid yearly over the last six years has been $861,622. During the time in which the monetary reserve fund would be accumulated, the Committee would seek funding from a commercial lending institution as previously explained in Proposal #1.
While this action would result in a temporary increase in handler costs, these costs would be uniform on all handlers and proportional to the size of their businesses. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from operation of the order. Additionally, these costs would help to ensure that the Committee has sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. Such stability is expected to allow the Committee to conduct programs that would benefit all entities, regardless of size. California raisin producers should see an improved business environment and a more sustainable business model because of the improved business efficiency.
Alternatives were considered to these proposals, including making no changes at this time. However, the Committee
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
These proposed amendments would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California raisin handlers.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California raisin production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 2, 2014, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
Two comments were received. One comment was in support of the proposal. The second comment stated that the term “commercial lending institution” is vague and asked for the name of the institution and clarification regarding what constitutes a shortage. The comment also stated that the lending arrangement should be discussed openly. To clarify, as used in this proposal, a shortage would exist when the Committee's cash flow needs exceed the amount of cash available from handler assessments. Regarding open discussion, the Committee establishes a budget and assessment rate annually in meetings that are open to the public. During these meetings, the Committee would discuss any shortages and any available commercial lending opportunities. No changes have been made to the proposed amendments as a result of the comments received.
The findings and conclusions and general findings and determinations included in the proposed rule set forth in the October 16, 2015, issue of the
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions. It is hereby ordered, that this entire rule be published in the
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR part 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California is approved by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during a representative period were engaged in the production of raisins in the production area. The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015.
The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are designated to be Maria Stobbe and Andrea Ricci, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, or Email:
Raisins, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
1. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
2. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;
3. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of raisins produced in the production area; and
5. All handling of raisins produced in the production area as defined in the
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on October 15, 2015, and published in the
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(c) During any crop year or any portion of a crop year for which volume percentages are not effective for a varietal type, all standard raisins of that varietal type acquired by handlers during such period shall be free tonnage for purposes of levying assessments pursuant to this section. The Secretary shall fix the rate of assessment to be paid by all handlers on the basis of a specified rate per ton. At any time during or after a crop year, the Secretary may increase the rate of assessment to obtain sufficient funds to cover any later finding by the Secretary relative to the expenses of the committee. Each handler shall pay such additional assessment to the committee upon demand. In order to provide funds to carry out the functions of the committee, the committee may accept advance payments from any handler to be credited toward such assessments as may be levied pursuant to this section against such handler during the crop year. In the event cash flow needs of the committee are above cash available generated by handler assessments, the committee may borrow from a commercial lending institution. The payment of assessments for the maintenance and functioning of the committee, and for such purposes as the Secretary may pursuant to this subpart determine to be appropriate, may be required under this part throughout the period it is in effect, irrespective of whether particular provisions thereof are suspended or become inoperative.
(a) If, at the end of the crop year, the assessments collected are in excess of expenses incurred, such excess shall be accounted for in accordance with one of the following:
(1) If such excess is not retained in a reserve, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it shall be refunded proportionately to the persons from whom collected in accordance with § 989.80;
(2) The committee may carry over such excess funds into subsequent crop years as a reserve;
(i) To defray essential administrative expenses (
(ii) To cover deficits incurred during any period when assessment income is less than expenses;
(iii) To defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of this part are suspended;
(iv) To meet any other such expenses recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary; and
(v) To cover the necessary expenses of liquidation in the event of termination of this part. Upon such termination, any funds not required to defray the necessary expenses of liquidation shall be disposed of in such manner as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; denial.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), and Mr. Paul M. Blanch (collectively, the petitioners) on June 18, 2012. The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its regulations to clearly and unequivocally require the environmental qualification of all safety-related cables, wires, splices, connections and other ancillary electrical equipment that may be subjected to submergence and/or moisture intrusion during normal operating conditions, severe weather, seasonal flooding, and seismic events, and post-accident conditions, both inside and outside of a reactor's containment building. The NRC is denying this petition because the current regulations already address environmental qualification in both mild and design basis event conditions of electrical equipment located both inside and outside of the containment building that is important to safety, and the petition does not provide significant new or previously unconsidered information sufficient to justify rulemaking.
The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-106, is closed on March 7, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0177 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this petition. You may obtain publicly-available information related to the petition by using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Margaret Ellenson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0894; email:
On June 18, 2012, the NRC received a petition for rulemaking filed jointly by the NRDC and Mr. Paul Blanch (ADAMS Accession No. ML12177A377). The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its regulations in parts 50, 52, 54, and 100 of title 10 of the
The petition was docketed by the NRC on June 22, 2012, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-106. On September 27, 2012 (77 FR 59345), the NRC published a notice of receipt in the
The petitioners raised three issues in support of their request that the NRC amend the regulations related to environmental qualification of electrical equipment at nuclear power plants. The three issues and the NRC's responses to each issue are presented in this section.
The petitioners stated that as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island, the NRC strengthened the regulatory requirements for electrical equipment by, among other things, revising § 50.49(e) to add paragraph (6) to address the possibility of electrical equipment submergence. The petitioners asserted that § 50.49(e)(6), as written, did not limit or restrict its applicability based upon the location of the equipment, but that the NRC staff limited this applicability through a question and answer (Q&A) set in GL 82-09:
Q. For equipment qualification purposes, what are the staff requirements concerning submergence of equipment outside containment?
A. The staff requires that the licensee submit documentation on the qualification of safety-related equipment that could be submerged due to a high energy line break outside containment.
The petitioners asserted that the problem with this excerpt from GL 82-09 is that safety-related cables and wires outside containment are routinely submerged in water not only during high energy line breaks (HELBs), but also during a reactor's normal operation. The petitioners argued that the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and laboratory testing have shown that moisture intrusion and submergence of electrical cables and wires significantly increase the probability of failure, which also causes the failure of connected components such as emergency core cooling system motors and pumps, valves, controls, and instrumentation. The petitioners asserted that the safety implications from the failure of a safety-related cable inside containment submerged by an accident, outside containment submerged by a high energy line break, or outside containment submerged by nature, are identical—the safety function is lost.
The NRC agrees with the petitioners that safety-related cables and other electrical equipment must be fully able to function, not only within an operating environment affected by a HELB under § 50.49, but also over the entire length of its system, even those portions not exposed to a HELB. Criterion 18 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, requires that electric power systems important to safety be designed so that important areas and features permit appropriate periodic inspection and testing. Example areas and features specified are the following: wiring, insulation, connections, and switchboards. Criterion 18 also requires the systems to be designed with a capability to test periodically the operability and functional performance of the components of the systems and the operability of the system as a whole.
As the petitioners rightly point out, designing the entirety of an electrical safety system for inspectability and testability is essential because “[i]t matters little if the portion of a safety-related cable inside [or] outside containment in a high energy line break area survive[s] if another portion of that same cable routed underground fails due to submergence.” It is also important to note that the NRC's design and qualification requirements for underground or inaccessible wires, cables, and ancillary equipment are inspected and enforced. The NRC's inspection procedures direct that inspections of electrical equipment at risk of flooding or exposure to moisture be conducted annually.
The NRC disagrees with the petitioners' assertion that GL 82-09 has restricted the applicability of § 50.49 regulatory requirements for safety-related equipment according to its location. Generic letters do not have the legal authority of a final rule promulgated after due public notice and comment, as was § 50.49. The Q&A in GL 82-09 does not exempt any safety-related equipment that could be submerged, inside or outside containment, from the environmental qualifications (EQ) requirements of § 50.49. The purpose of the GL 82-09 Q&A cited by the petitioners was simply to clarify that under § 50.49, licensees must submit information on the EQ of important to safety equipment that could be submerged due to a high energy line break outside containment. The applicability of § 50.49 is not limited to a HELB, although after more than 30 years of operating experience and risk analysis, a HELB remains the most probable DBE involving submergence outside containment that meets the § 50.49 criteria for the subset of DBEs that could result in a severe accident. The clarifying Q&A was important because the GL was providing information in the event of a HELB, not describing the entire universe of postulated DBEs to which § 50.49 could apply.
The petitioners argued that rulemaking is necessary to ensure that electrical cables and wires will be properly qualified for environmental conditions they may experience during normal operation (
Also in support of their request for rulemaking to extend § 50.49 requirements to electrical equipment in mild environments, the petitioners contended that the NRC's requirements state only that safety systems should remain functional and do not provide conditions or acceptance criteria for degraded cables.
The NRC disagrees with the petitioners' assertion that § 50.49 should be amended to extend EQ requirements to important to safety cables and electrical equipment exposed to submergence or moisture intrusion in mild environments. The existing rule specifically exempts from these requirements equipment exposed only to a “mild environment,” which is defined in § 50.49(c) as an environment that would at no time be significantly more severe than the environment that would occur during normal plant operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.
All important to safety equipment whether in mild or non-mild environments is subject to the requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintanence under the maintenance rule (§ 50.65). Furthermore, all important to safety equipment at plants with construction permits issued after May 21, 1971, is also subject to the design and quality requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix A. In addition to the above requirements, all safety-related equipment is also subject to the quality assurance requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B. Therefore, equipment in mild environments exposed to submergence, condensation, and moisture intrusion, the kind of
The maintenance rule (§ 50.65) establishes requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants. Under § 50.65(a)(1), licensees are required to monitor the condition or performance of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) in a manner providing reasonable assurance that the intended SSC functions can be fulfilled. Section 50.65(b) describes the types of SSCs subject to its requirements. The maintenance rule (§ 50.65) applies to safety and non-safety SSCs that includes the following: SSCs used in the plant's emergency operating procedures or relied upon to mitigate accidents or transient unsafe conditions; SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from fulfilling their safety-related function; or SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram (unplanned action to stop the fission reaction) or the actuation of a safety-related system. With this scope, the maintenance rule (§ 50.65) already covers the equipment specified in the petition (
In its April 2012 Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.218, “Condition-Monitoring Techniques for Electric Cables Used In Nuclear Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML103510447), the NRC described a programmatic approach and acceptable techniques for monitoring the condition of electric cable systems and their operating environments. As authority for this guidance, RG 1.218 cited 10 CFR part 50, Criterion XI, “Test Control,” of appendix B. Criterion XI specifies that power reactor licensees must have a program to assure that all testing required to show that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed.
The test program must include, as appropriate, operational tests of SSCs during nuclear power plant operation. Test procedures must include provisions for assuring that all prerequisites for the given test have been met, that adequate test instrumentation is available and used, and that the test is performed under suitable environmental conditions. Test results under Criterion XI must also be “documented and evaluated” to ensure that this Criterion's requirements have been satisfied. It is important to note that Criterion XI is only one of 18 criteria that are applicable to a quality assurance program for the electrical equipment at issue in this petition. Appendix B criteria establish quality assurance requirements for the design, manufacture, construction, and operation of all safety-related equipment, and all activities affecting its functions, including not only testing, but designing, purchasing, fabricating, handling, shipping, storing, cleaning, installing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, and modifying this equipment. Criterion XVI, “Corrective Action,” also requires licensees to have measures assuring that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected. Examples of such conditions are the following: failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances. For significant conditions adverse to quality, including the potential failure of electrical equipment to function as designed, licensees must determine the cause of the condition and “assure” that corrective action is taken to preclude a repetition of the adverse condition. The identified condition, its cause, and the corrective action taken to prevent its recurrence must also be documented and the appropriate levels of management informed. In addition, for important to safety cables and electrical equipment located in an area meeting the definition of a mild environment in § 50.49, 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDC 4 requires that this equipment be designed to manage the conditions it will experience during normal operation, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents.
The NRC does not agree that its existing regulations do not require sufficient protection of important to safety electrical equipment against expected or potential environmental conditions it experiences during its period of service. Regardless of whether a cable, switch, or other piece of electrical equipment must be environmentally qualified under § 50.49, it must meet maintenance, design, and quality assurance requirements established by § 50.65; 10 CFR part 50, appendix A; and 10 CFR part 50, appendix B (for safety-related equipment), to provide adequate protection for public health and safety. And regardless of whether the equipment is environmentally qualified, it is subject to the same degree of NRC oversight in the form of inspections and enforcement. A rulemaking to require the environmental qualification of all electrical equipment exposed only to mild environments is, therefore, unnecessary.
Moreover, the 1996 DOE study and three EPRI studies cited by the petitioners are well known to the NRC and do not constitute significant new information justifying a rulemaking. The NRC recognized the concern regarding the reliability of low-voltage power cable systems at reactors that the petitioner references and acted accordingly. Among other things, the NRC has revised its inspection procedures to ensure annual inspections of underground bunkers and manholes in a continuing repeated cycle beginning with those containing the most risk-significant cables. The NRC also issued RG 1.218, describing a programmatic approach and acceptable techniques for monitoring the condition of electric cable systems and their operating environments.
The NRC disagrees with the petitioners' contention that the NRC's requirements do not provide conditions or acceptance criteria for degraded cables. Any requirement for safety-related systems to remain functional for a specified operating life is a design requirement, and any failure of the equipment before the end of that operating life would be a violation of that design requirement. Therefore, taken together, GDC 2, 4, and 18 in 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, the maintenance requirements under § 50.65, and the quality assurance testing requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XI, effectively provide an enforceable acceptance criterion for the continued use of cables or any other electrical equipment degrading during normal operation. Criterion XI states that the measured rate of degradation must not impair the equipment's ability to function in an emergency, even if the emergency were to occur on the last day of the performance period specified in the equipment's design requirement.
Guidance for the implementation of this criterion is provided in the August 25, 2009, NRC staff regulatory resolution issue protocol, “Cable Performance Issues at Nuclear Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML092220419), which the petitioners cited as documentation of the NRC's requirements on cable and wire submergence issues. The NRC staff position in that protocol is: (1) Licensees should monitor cables within the scope of the maintenance rule (§ 50.65) at an appropriate frequency to demonstrate that they can perform their design functions when called upon; and (2) cables must be designed to fulfill their intended design function in the environment to which they are subject. Under the protocol, if cables have been exposed to conditions for which they are not designed or qualified, the licensee must demonstrate, through adequate testing or condition monitoring, that the cables can perform their intended design function for the duration of the qualified period specified in the license.
The NRC also inspects underground cables through established inspection procedures. In particular, Inspection Procedure (IP) Attachment 71111.06, “Flood Protection Measures” (ADAMS Accession No. ML11244A012), specifically directs NRC inspectors to perform an annual review of cables located in underground bunkers or manholes. The IP Attachment directs inspectors to select bunkers or manholes subject to flooding that contain multiple train or multiple risk-significant cables, and inspect those that contain more risk-significant cables before inspecting those with less risk-significant cables. The IP notes that inspectors should rotate through the bunkers or manholes until all are inspected; and then the cycle should be recommenced. The IP Attachment also clarifies that these inspections may be in addition to those for the aging management programs of plants with renewed licenses. Where “significant moisture” is identified at such plants, inspectors are to verify that the licensee takes action to keep the cables dry and assess cable degradation in accordance with the licensee's aging management program.
Citing the August 25, 2009, NRC staff regulatory issue resolution protocol, “Cable Performance Issues at Nuclear Power Plants,” the petitioners asserted that this statement defined the NRC's governing regulations on submerged cable performance as explicitly including GDC 2 and GDC 4. The GDC 2 requires reactor SSCs that are important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. The GDC 4 requires that these SSCs be designed to accommodate the effects of and be compatible with the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents.
The petition stated that although these GDC may contain appropriate regulatory requirements for the qualification of electrical cables and wires, the NRC has determined that these requirements are not to be applied to the majority of reactors. The petitioners noted that, at the time the petition was submitted, at least 57 of the nation`s 104 operating reactors had construction permits that were issued prior to the effective date of the GDC rule, and that the Commission, through guidance to the NRC staff, has determined that the GDC do not need to be applied to these 57 reactors.
The SRM explained that at the time the GDC were promulgated, the Commission had stressed that they were not new requirements and were promulgated to articulate more clearly the licensing requirements and practice in effect at that time. The Commission stated that while compliance with the intent of the GDC is important, each plant licensed before the GDC were formally adopted was evaluated on a plant-specific basis, determined to be safe, and licensed by the NRC. Furthermore, the Commission determined that existing regulatory processes were sufficient to ensure that plants continue to be safe and comply with the intent of the GDC. As the petitioners also noted, the Commission went on to say that backfitting these 57 plants to meet the GDC would provide little or no safety benefit while requiring an extensive commitment of resources. The petitioners have not provided any significant, new, or previously unconsidered information to justify a new rulemaking or to reverse this NRC position.
The NRC is denying PRM-50-106 because:
(1) The NRC disagrees with the petitioners' assertion that GL 82-09 has restricted the applicability of § 50.49 regulatory requirements for safety-related equipment according to its location. This regulation is applicable to electrical equipment located outside containment as well as inside.
(2) Section 50.49 explicitly excludes important to safety electrical equipment subject only to mild environments. The petitioners have not provided significant new information sufficient to justify a change to this rule. A rulemaking to require the environmental qualification of all electrical equipment exposed only to mild environments is unnecessary because existing NRC regulations require sufficient protection of important to safety electrical equipment against expected or potential environmental conditions it experiences during its period of service.
(3) With regard to the reactors that received construction permits prior to May 21, 1971, the Commission determined in response to SECY-92-223, “Resolution of Deviations Identified During the Systematic Evaluation Program” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12256B290) that these plants are operating safely with appropriately qualified important to safety equipment, and that no specific backfits of the GDC to these plants were required. The petitioners have not provided any significant, new, or previously unconsidered information justifying a rulemaking to apply the GDC to the 57 reactors that received construction permits prior to May 21, 1971.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM-50-106. The NRC is denying this petition because the current regulations already address environmental qualification in both mild and design basis event conditions of electrical equipment located both inside and outside of the containment building that is important to safety, and the petitioners did not provide significant new or previously unconsidered information sufficient to justify rulemaking.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of reopening of comment period.
On December 29, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The DOE is reopening the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81199) and extended on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 8022). We will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NOPR received no later than March 14, 2016.
See the section “Public Participation” for details on submitting comments.
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-6590. Email:
On December 29, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NOPR received no later than March 14, 2016. DOE will consider any comments in response to the NOPR received by midnight of March 14, 2016, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Import Data Collection, and provide docket number EERE-2015-BT-CE-0019 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1990-AA44. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or to request a public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
Proposed rulemaking; notice of public meeting.
This document announces that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will hold a public workshop to discuss the proposed rule for the coordination of federal authorizations for electric transmission facilities for the Integrated Interagency Pre-application (IIP) process. The public workshop will include a presentation describing the proposed rule and will allow for questions and comments about and on the rule.
The public workshop will be held on March 22, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Written comments are welcome before or after the workshop and should be submitted prior to the end of the public comment period for the proposed rule (April 4, 2016).
The meeting will be held via webinar and conference call. The webinar invitation, phone number, and instructions on how to register and log in to the webinar will be available at:
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1901-AB36, by any of the following methods:
1. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
2. Send email to
3. Address postal mail to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mailstop OE-20, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Due to potential delays in the delivery of postal mail, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
This notice, a transcript of the public workshop, and any comments that DOE receives on the proposed rulemaking will be made available on the DOE Web site at
Julie A. Smith, Ph.D., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mailstop OE-20, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or
On February 2, 2016, DOE published a proposed rule in the
Members of the public are welcome to pre-register for the webinar if they would like to make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To pre-register to provide public comments, please email
An audio recording and written transcript of the public workshop, and any comments that DOE receives during the workshop, will be made available after the webinar on the DOE Web site at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a captain's seat moved uncommanded during a landing rollout due to a failure in the seat horizontal actuator. This proposed AD would require repetitive tests of the captain and first officer seat assemblies for proper operation, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also require installing new captain and first officer seat assemblies, which would terminate the repetitive tests. We are proposing this AD to prevent a seat actuator clutch failure, which could result in a loss of seat locking and uncommanded motion of the captain's or first officer's seat; uncommanded seat movement could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6572; fax: 425-917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a captain's seat moved uncommanded during a landing rollout due to a failure in the seat horizontal actuator. Investigation found press fit clutch pins in the actuator could migrate loose when subjected to repeated dynamic impact loading from clutch re-engagement when the manual horizontal control lever is released with the seat still moving on the tracks. The clutch pins can migrate loose, overturn, and force clutch plate separation, resulting in degraded or failed seat locking.
We are proposing this AD to prevent a seat actuator clutch failure, which could result in a loss of seat locking and uncommanded motion of the captain's or first officer's seat; uncommanded seat movement could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014. This service information provides procedures for installation of new captain and first officer seat assemblies, a test of the captain and first officer seat assemblies, and corrective action if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed operational tests. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 21, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that a captain's seat moved uncommanded during a landing rollout due to a failure in the seat horizontal actuator. We are issuing this AD to prevent a seat actuator clutch failure, which could result in a loss of seat locking and uncommanded motion of the captain's or first officer's seat; uncommanded seat motion could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, test the operation of the captain and first officer seat assemblies and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours until the installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done.
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014. Installing the seat specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive operational tests required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that seat only.
(1) Install new captain seat assembly, part number (P/N) 3A380-0007-01-7.
(2) Install new first officer seat assembly, P/N 3A380-0008-01-7.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, ANM-150S, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD, apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6572; fax: 425-917-6590.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of partial loss of no-back brake (NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine THSA part number, serial numbers, and flight cycles on certain THSAs; and repetitive replacement for certain THSAs. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which in conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
During endurance qualification tests on a Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA) concerning another aeroplane type, a partial loss of the noback brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced. Investigation results concluded that this partial loss of braking efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions was due to polishing and auto-contamination of the NBB carbon friction disks.
Due to design similarity on the A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 fleet, the same tests were initiated by the THSA manufacturer on certain type THSA, sampled from the field. Subject tests confirmed that THSA Part Number (P/N) 47142 series, as installed on the A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 fleet, are also affected by this partial loss of NBB efficiency.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could potentially lead to an uncommanded movement of the Horizontal Stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the removal from service of each affected THSA, with the intent of in-shop NBB carbon disk replacement.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the THSA.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, EASA has already issued regulations that require operators to replace certain THSAs to address an identified unsafe condition by certain dates, but before exceeding certain flight cycle limits corresponding to each date. To provide for coordinated implementation of EASA's regulations and this proposed AD, we are using the same compliance dates in this proposed AD.
This AD proposes the replacement of the NBB disks at an interval of 14,600 flight cycles to take full benefit of the THSA published life limits. The replacement of the THSA NBB disks having already accumulated more than 14,600 flight cycles will start with the oldest THSA. A different grace period for NBB disks replacement has been defined depending on the flight cycles accumulated on the THSA NBB disks.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 152 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $590,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $90,028,840, or $592,295 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 21, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of partial loss of no-back brake (NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which in conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
THSAs affected by the requirements of this AD have part numbers (P/Ns) 47142-403, 47142-413, 47142-414, and 47142-423.
FAA AD 2011-15-08, Amendment 39-16755 (76 FR 42029, July 18, 2011) requires installation of three secondary retention plates for the gimbal bearings on the THSA upper primary attachment, which involved a THSA part number change from the -300 series to the -400 series.
The life limits specified in Part 4 of the airworthiness limitations section are still relevant for the affected THSA. This AD addresses a replacement limit for the NBB disks installed on the THSA, not the life limit for the THSA itself.
Before each date and before exceeding the corresponding THSA flight-cycle limits specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and before exceeding the flight cycle limit corresponding to each date as specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Do an inspection of the THSA to determine the part number and serial number.
(2) Do an inspection of the airplane maintenance records to determine the flight cycles accumulated on each affected THSA since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later. If no maintenance records conclusively identifying the last NBB disk replacement are available, the flight cycles accumulated since first installation of the THSA on an airplane apply.
By each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, for those affected THSAs having reached or exceeded the corresponding number of flight cycles
Paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD specify compliance dates and THSA flight cycle limits for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
(1) As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 30,000 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.
(2) As of February 1, 2017: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 20,000 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.
(3) As of February 1, 2018: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 14,600 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.
For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a unit identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) A THSA identified in paragraph (g) of this AD that, as of each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, has not exceeded the flight cycle limits specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since the last NBB disk replacement, whichever is later.
(2) A THSA with a different part number (
As of each date and before exceeding the flight cycle limit corresponding to each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD: Replace each affected THSA with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015.
Before each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, an operator may install an affected THSA on an airplane, provided that the unit has not exceeded the corresponding number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurred later.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), Little Rock, AR. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to closure of the air traffic control tower and associated approaches at Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR. Dennis F. Cantrell Field would be removed from the airspace designation and legal description as it is no longer needed to describe the boundaries of Little Rock AFB. The FAA is proposing this action for continued safety within the National Airspace System (NAS). Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR, would be adjusted.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3085; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Little Rock AFB, Little Rock, AR.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3085/Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending the Class E airspace area at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), AR. The air traffic control tower at Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR, has closed, and approaches cancelled. This action would remove Dennis F. Cantrell Field, from the airspace designation and description for Little Rock AFB, as they are no longer needed to define its boundaries. Additionally, geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB, would be changed from (lat. 34°54′59″ N., long. 92°08′47″ W.) to (lat. 34°55′03″ N., long. 92°08′42″ W.) and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR, coordinates would be changed from (lat. 34°33′23″ N., long. 92°36′25″ W.) to (lat. 34°35′25″ N., long. 92°28′46″ W.). These minor adjustments would reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded within a 20-mile radius of Little Rock AFB, and within a 22-mile radius of Adams Field Airport and within a 6.3-mile radius of Saline County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Alaskan VOR Federal airway V-506 by lowering the floor of class E controlled airspace due to the establishment of a lower global navigation satellite system (GNSS) minimum enroute altitude (MEA). This action would allow maximum use of the airspace.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3193 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-3 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure in the western U.S. to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3193 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3193 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
On September 24, 1975, the FAA published a final rule that extended V-506 between Kotzebue and Barrow Alaska (40 FR 43885). Terrain in the vicinity limited the Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA) to 10,000 feet for a large portion of this route, between the fixes SHOKK and MEADE on current charts. Due to this MEA, the airspace floor designated in the legal description was set at 9,500 feet for this section. In 2005, Anchorage Center requested a review for a lower GNSS MEA, and the FAA was able to apply a lower GNSS MEA of 8,000 feet. However, this action did not uncover the fact that controlled airspace did not exist to encompass the new MEA. On September 24, 2015, the FAA issued NOTAM FDC 5/6054 that made the GNSS MEA between SHOKK and MEADE unavailable.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Federal airway V-506 in Alaska that would lower the floor of controlled airspace north of Kotzebue, AK. The current legal description after Kotzebue, AK, of “Kotzebue, AK; Hotham, AK, NDB; 69 miles 12 AGL, 124 miles 95 MSL, 98 miles 12 AGL, Barrow, AK.” would be changed to read “Kotzebue, AK; Hotham, AK, NDB; 69 miles 12 AGL, 124 miles 75 MSL, 98 miles 12 AGL, Barrow, AK.”. The 124 mile section starting 69 miles north of the Hotham, AK NDB would be lowered from 9,500 feet to 7,500 feet. This airspace would support the GNSS MEA of 8,000 feet by providing a 500 foot buffer consistent with guidance found in FAA Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. This expansion of airspace would provide instrument flight rules (IFR) users maximum use of V-506.
Alaskan VOR federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. V-506 would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that would only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From INT Kodiak, AK, 107° radial and the Anchorage Oceanic CTA/FIR boundary, 37 miles 20 MSL, 24 miles 12 AGL, via Kodiak; 50 miles 12 AGL, 50 miles 95 MSL, 51 miles 12 AGL, King Salmon, AK; 51 miles 12 AGL, 84 miles 70 MSL, 63 miles 12 AGL, Bethel, AK; Nome, AK; 35 miles 12 AGL, 71 miles 55 MSL, 53 miles 12 AGL, Kotzebue, AK; Hotham, AK, NDB; 69 miles 12 AGL, 124 miles 75 MSL, 98 miles 12 AGL, Barrow, AK.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Taos Regional Airport, Taos, NM. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approaches due to advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Taos Regional Airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-0526; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Taos Regional Airport, Taos, NM.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0526/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Taos Regional Airport, Taos, NM. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the NDB and cancellation of the NDB approaches at Taos Regional Airport. Advances in GPS capabilities would ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Taos Regional Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface beginning at lat. 36°07′00″ N., long. 105°47′42″ W., thence via the 21.3-mile arc of Taos Regional Airport clockwise to lat. 36°48′00″ N., long. 105°47′35″ W., thence to lat. 36°30′00″ N., long. 105°30′02″ W., thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Extension of deadline for submission of public comments.
The FTC is extending the deadline for filing public comments on the Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries.
Comments will be accepted until June 3, 2016.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions at the end of the
Reenah L. Kim, Attorney, (202) 326-2272, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
A trade association representing jewelry industry members, Jewelers Vigilance Committee (“JVC”), requests a 60-day extension of the comment deadline. JVC explains that the FRN poses many questions that may require consumer research, metallurgical testing, and other information developed through experts. JVC states that additional time is therefore needed for the committees it has convened to coordinate their work, perform the necessary analysis, and develop meaningful consumer research and other expert information.
Given the complexity and range of issues raised in the FRN, including the request for consumer perception evidence, the Commission believes that allowing additional time for filing comments would help facilitate the creation of a more complete record. Moreover, this brief extension would not harm consumers because the current Guides remain in effect during the review process. Therefore, the Commission has decided to extend the comment period to June 3, 2016.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 3, 2016. Write “Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR part 23, Project No. G711001” 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
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 must 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. Accordingly, 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 “Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR part 23, Project No. G711001” on your comment
Visit the Commission Web site at
By direction of the Commission.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Proposed rule.
DOD is establishing policies based on section 539 of Public Law 111-84 to implement the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children (referred to as the “Compact”) within the DoD. The proposed rule provides components with policies to support the intent of the Compact, which is to aid the transition of school-age children in military families between school districts (to include between Department of Defense Educational Activity schools and state school districts). Each state joining the compact agrees to address specific school transition issues in a consistent way and minimize school disruptions for military children transferring from one state school system to another. The compact consists of general policies in four key areas: Eligibility, enrollment, placement and graduation. Children of active duty members of the uniformed services, National Guard and Reserve on active duty orders, and members or veterans who are medically discharged or retired for one year are eligible for assistance under the Compact.
Comments must be received by May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Marcus Beauregard, 571-372-5357.
This proposed rule provides components of the DoD with policies to support the intent of the Compact, which is to aid the transition of school-age children in military families between school districts. The intent of the program is to ensure children are enrolled immediately in their new school, placed in the appropriate academic program, and are able to graduate on time.
Each state joining the compact agrees to address specific school transition issues in a consistent way and minimize school disruptions for military children transferring from one state school system to another. The compact consists of general policies in four key areas: Eligibility, enrollment, placement and graduation.
As of August 2014, 50 states have passed legislation to become members of the compact, including most of those with large numbers of military residents. The Department of Defense Education Activity cannot be a member of the compact but is complying with its provisions in both overseas and domestic schools. In return, the compact member states have agreed to treat students coming from a DoDEA school as though they were transferring from a member state. The compact has provisions for member states to facilitate enrollment in the following areas:
•
•
•
Students from military families often miss appropriate placement in required classes, advanced placement and special-needs programs while awaiting evaluation at the new school. The compact requires cooperation in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
The compact asks school districts in member states to examine their rules for eligibility to allow children of military parents to have the continuity they need.
•
•
School transitions can be especially challenging for high school students. The compact requires school districts to make the following accommodations to facilitate on-time graduation:
•
•
•
The compact does not address the quality of education or require a state to change any of its standards or education criteria. The Military Interstate Children's Compact Commission (MIC3) has created a variety of downloadable brochures, webinars and other resources to help parents and educators learn more about the Compact—See more at:
If a family has a concern about a provision of the compact as it relates to a child, it's best to contact the school first. Each installation has a school liaison to help work with schools to get questions answered or to provide information on next steps to take if concerns cannot be successfully resolved.
The legal authorities for this rule clarify the definition of children in military families covered by this rule, cover the protections afforded these children, and provide the authority for establishing the policies included in this rule for the DoD Education Activity:
(1) 10 U.S. Code 2164—Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. This citation states the Secretary of Defense may issue directives that the Secretary considers necessary for the effective operation of the school or the entire school system, outside of the authority given to the School Boards selected to oversee these schools.
(2) 20 U.S. Code—Education, Chapter 25A—Overseas Defense Dependents' Education § 921—Defense Dependents' Education System, and § 932—Definitions. This citation provides the scope of the authority of the Secretary of Defense to define programs and activities to provide a free public education through secondary school for dependents in overseas areas.
The major provisions of this regulatory action include designating DoD liaisons to State Councils of member states of the Compact, designating the DoD ex-officio member to the Compact Commission, implementing the relevant school transition policies established in the Compact within the DoDEA school system, and establishing a committee within DoDEA to advise on compliance by DoDEA school.
(1) As required by the Compact, states establish Councils to oversee the implementation of the Compact within the state. The Compact prescribes membership of the State Council, which may include a representative from the military community within the state. Since this individual represents the interests of the military community to the State Council, the military representative can only fulfill a liaison role on the Council and must be designated by DoD. This rule defines the role for the military representative (§ 89.7(a)), along with the process (§ 89.7(b)) for coordinating the requests from State Commissioners and designating these military representatives.
(2) The Compact allows DoD to send an ex-officio representative to the Commission meetings, and also requires the DoD ex-officio representative to participate on the Executive Committee of the Commission. This rule provides guidelines for the DoD ex-officio representative (§ 89.7(d)).
(3) This rule establishes policies for DoDEA governing the transition of school age children in military families (§ 89.8 of this rule), which are equivalent to the following policies included in the Compact: Article IV—records and enrollment, Article V—placement and attendance, Article VI—eligibility for enrollment, and Article VII—graduation.
(4) This rule establishes a committee to advise DoDEA on compliance with provisions in § 89.8. The DoDEA Committee also provides input to the
There are no provisions in this proposed rule which are expected to increase costs for members of the public. Requirements included in this rule may require action to be taken by state education departments and local education agencies as a result of requirements of the state laws.
The cost to the Department are summarized below:
• (Military representative attending State Council meetings. State Council meetings are generally held at a central location for the state, and are expected to be held at least once per year. The military representative would be required, while on duty and at government expense, to travel to and attend the meeting. A meeting would be expected to demand an average of 1.5 days (travel and meeting time), which would cost an approximate average of $564
• Identifying, nominating and designating a military representative. DOD estimates approximately 76 hours
• Ex-officio representation to the Military Interstate Child Compact Commission (MIC3). This individual participates in the annual conference, executive committee meeting and other standing committee meetings and would cost DOD approximately $8,460 per year.
Additionally, this proposed rule will direct DoDEA to transition children under specific policies. These are the same policies that are included in the Compact, Articles IV-VII, which have been shown to be cost-neutral (and perhaps a cost-benefit) when implemented by local education agencies within the states that are members of the Compact.
The benefits derived from DoD's participation in the Compact accrue to Service members and their families, particularly the 707,000 school-age children educated by local education agencies and DoDEA.
The Compact Articles IV-VII were developed as a result of input from 17 representative national and state stakeholders who were asked to participate in a working group sponsored by the Council of State Governments, National Center for Interstate Compacts.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action, although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
The Department of Defense certifies that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This rule does not impose reporting and record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). It has been determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this rule preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, DoD did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.
Children, Education, Interstate compact.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 89 is proposed to be added to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 2164, 20 U.S.C. 921-932.
In accordance with section 539 of Public Law 111-84, this part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures to implement the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children (referred to in this part as the “Compact”) within the DoD.
This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD.
These terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.
(1) Are on active duty, including members of the National Guard and Reserve on active duty orders pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1211;
(2) Are active duty or veterans who are severely wounded, ill, or injured; or
(3) Die on active duty or as a result of injuries sustained on active duty.
(4) Children of military members who are severely wounded, ill, or injured retain this designation for 1 year after discharge or retirement. Children of military members who die on active duty or as a result of injuries sustained on active duty, retain this designation for 1 year after death.
(1) The formal and physical process of transferring from school to school; or
(2) The period of time in which a child moves from a school in the sending State to a school in the receiving State.
In accordance with Section 539 of Public Law 111-84, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010” and DoD 5500.07-R, “Joint Ethics Regulations (JER)” (available at
(a) Designating military liaisons to State Councils of member States, the DoDEA Committee, and the MIC3.
(b) Implementing the intent of the Compact in the DoDEA to ensure:
(1) Timely enrollment of children in school so they are not penalized due to:
(i) Late or delayed transfers of educational records from the previous school district(s); or
(ii) Differences in entrance or age requirements.
(2) Placement of children in educational courses and programs, including special educational services, so they are not penalized due to differences in attendance requirements, scheduling, sequencing, grading, or course content.
(3) Flexible qualification and eligibility of children so they can have an equitable chance at participation in extracurricular, academic, athletic, and social activities.
(4) Graduation within the same timeframe as the children's peers.
(c) Promoting through DoDEA and the Military Departments:
(1) Flexibility and cooperation among SEAs or LEAs, DoDEA, Military Departments, parents, and children to achieve educational success.
(2) Coordination among the various State agencies, LEAs, and military installations regarding the State's participation in the Compact.
(a) Under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD(M&RA)) oversees the implementation of this part.
(b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the ASD (M&RA), the DASD(MC&FP):
(1) Designates military representatives as liaisons to State councils, nominated by the Secretaries of the Military Departments by the procedures outlined in § 89.7 of this part.
(2) Designates the DoD ex-officio member of MIC3, insofar as DoD is invited to do so by MIC3.
(3) Maintains a roster of designated liaisons to State councils in accordance with 32 CFR part 310.
(4) Monitors issues arising under the Compact:
(i) Affecting children of military families attending and transferring between member State schools; and
(ii) the implementation of § 89.8 of this part, affecting children of military families transferring between member state schools and DoDEA's schools (consisting of the Department of Defense Schools (DoDDS)—Europe, DoDDS—Pacific, and the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS)).
(c) Under the authority, direction, and control of ASD (M&RA), the Director, DoDEA:
(1) To the extent allowable by 10 U.S.C. 2164 and 20 U.S.C. 921-932, adjusts operating policies and procedures issued pursuant to DoD Directive 1342.20, “Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)” (available at
(2) Informs boards and councils, described in DoD Instruction 1342.15, “Educational Advisory Committees and Councils” (available at
(3) Addresses disputes over provisions in § 89.8 of this part between member States and DoDEA. When differences cannot be resolved with a member State, works with MIC3 to resolve these disputes.
(4) Establishes the DoDEA Committee to review compliance with the provisions in § 89.8 of this part and to address issues raised by the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerning the implementation of these provisions.
(5) Ensures all personally identifiable information (PII) is collected, maintained, disseminated, and used in accordance with 32 CFR part 310.
(6) Ensures that DoDEA schools comply with § 89.8 and that DoDEA school-level officials inform DoDEA students transferring to schools in member States of the benefits extended by receiving States under the Compact.
(d) The Secretaries of the Military Departments:
(1) Nominate military representatives, in accordance with the procedures outlined in § 89.7 of this part, for designation as liaisons to State Councils by the DASD(MC&FP) when such DoD liaison is requested.
(2) Establish departmental policies and procedures to inform military communities of:
(i) The provisions of this part as it affects children of military families attending and transferring between member State schools; and
(ii) the provisions in § 89.8 of this part concerning students transferring between DoDEA and member State schools.
(3) Procedures to resolve issues or challenges raised by parents concerning the provisions of § 89.8 of this part.
DoD implements policy in this part by:
(a) Establishing a committee within DoDEA (referred to in this part as the “DoDEA Committee”).
(b) Designating military representatives to the State Councils of the member States and the DoDEA Committee in accordance with procedures in § 89.7.
(c) Designating the ex-officio member to MIC3 in accordance with § 89.5 and § 89.7.
(d) Ensuring DoDEA compliance with the selected provisions of the Compact described in § 89.8.
(a)
(1) Be a military member or a civilian employee of DoD who has a direct interface with the State education system as part of official duties or has supervisory responsibility for those who do.
(2) Only represent DoD interests (not the interests of the State Council), and consequently may not:
(i) Engage in management or control of the State Council (therefore, may not vote or make decisions on daily administration of council);
(ii) Endorse or allow the appearance of DoD endorsement of the State Council or its events, products, services, or enterprises;
(iii) Represent the State Council to third parties; or
(iv) Represent the State Council to the U.S. Government, as prohibited by federal criminal statutes.
(3) Make clear to the State Council that:
(i) The opinions expressed by the representative do not bind DoD or any DoD Component to any action.
(ii) If included on State Council Web sites, all references to the representative by name or title must indicate that they are the “Military Representative” as opposed to a council member.
(4) Notify the chain of command of issues requiring policy decisions or actions requested of the military community within the State.
(5) When called upon to act as the spokesperson for one or more than one installation:
(i) Get feedback from the designated points of contact at each military installation within his or her responsibility.
(ii) Coordinate proposed input to the State Council with the appropriate points of contact for each military installation within his or her responsibility.
(iii) Act as a conduit for information between the State Council and each military installation within his or her responsibility.
(iv) Provide feedback through the chain of command to the points of contact for each military installation within his or her responsibility and, as appropriate, to the OASA(M&RA), the OASN(M&RA), or the OASAF(M&RA).
(6) Notify the State Council and the appropriate Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Military Department listed in paragraph (a)(5)(iv) of this section, through the chain of command, of reassignment or other circumstances that would require a replacement.
(b)
(1) In accordance with DoD 5500.07-R, military representatives are nominated by the Military Departments and designated by the DASD(MC&FP), not by State officials. Depending on the number of military representatives required by State statute, designating representatives to a State Council will be accomplished according to the processes outlined in Table 1:
(2) When there is more than one military representative to a State Council (
(3) In circumstances where the State requests an individual by name, the DASD(MC&FP) will forward the request to the individual's Military Department for consideration. If that Military Department is different from the one designated in Table 2, the DASD(MC&FP) will first obtain the concurrence of the responsible Military Department.
(4) Military representatives are expected to serve a minimum of 2 years. When notified by the incumbent military representative of the need for a replacement, the OASA(M&RA), OASN(M&RA), or OASAF(M&RA) will inform DASD(MC&FP) of the request.
(5) In accordance with the Compact, State officials appoint or designate the Military Family Education Liaison for the State. Service members and DoD civilians cannot be appointed or designated to fill this position for the State.
(c)
(d)
(1) Be a military member or a civilian employee of DoD who can remain in the position for at least 2 years and who has a direct interface with DoDEA and the U.S. public education system as part of official duties or has supervisory responsibility for those who do.
(2) Attend as a liaison meetings of MIC3, its Executive Committee, and other standing committees where requested by the Commission.
(3) Only represent DoD interests (not the interests of MIC3), and consequently may not:
(i) Engage in management or control of MIC3 (therefore, may not vote or make decisions on daily administration of MIC3);
(ii) Endorse or allow the appearance of DoD endorsement of MIC3, or its events, products, services, or enterprises;
(iii) Represent the Commission to third parties; or
(iv) Represent MIC3 to the U.S. Government, as prohibited by criminal statutes.
(4) Make clear to MIC3 that:
(i) The opinions expressed by the incumbent do not bind DoD or any DoD Component to any action.
(ii) If included on MIC3 Web sites, all references to the incumbent by name or title must indicate that they are the “DoD Ex-Officio Member” as opposed to a MIC3 member.
(5) Notify the chain of command of issues requiring policy decisions or actions requested of DoD.
(a)
(1) For the purposes of DoD's implementation of the Compact in the schools it operates, DoDEA's area offices (Department of Defense Dependent Schools—Europe, Department of Defense Dependent Schools—Pacific, and the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools) and their schools are considered as the equivalent of LEAs and SEAs, respectively.
(2) Each DoDEA area acts as the “receiving LEA” and “sending LEA” in working with LEAs or SEAs in member States.
(b)
(1)
(i)
(A) If official education records cannot be released to the parents for transfer, the DoDEA custodian of the records, as the sending LEA shall provide to the parent a complete set of unofficial education records.
(B) Upon receipt of the unofficial education records, the DoDEA school, as the school in the receiving LEA shall enroll and appropriately place the child as quickly as possible based on the information in the unofficial records, pending validation by the official records.
(ii)
(A) The DoDEA school, acting as the receiving LEA shall request the child's official education record from the school in the sending State at the same time as DoDEA school enrolls and conditionally places the child.
(B) Upon receipt of the request for a child's records, the school in DoDEA, acting as the sending LEA will provide the child's official education records to the school in the receiving State, within 10 work days. If there is a designated school staff break, records will be provided as soon as possible; however, the time will not exceed 10 work days after the return of staff. DoDEA will initiate actions to meet these deadlines without violating the disclosure rules of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(iii)
(A) Parents have 30 days from the date of enrolling their child in a DoDEA school to have their child(ren) immunized in accordance with DoDEA's immunization requirements, as the receiving LEA.
(B) For a series of immunizations, parents must begin initial vaccinations of their child(ren) within 30 days.
(iv)
(A) At the time of transition and regardless of the age of the child, the DoDEA school, acting as the receiving LEA, shall enroll the transitioning child- at the -grade level—as the child's grade level (
(B) A child who has satisfactorily completed the prerequisite grade level in the sending state's LEA will be eligible for enrollment in the next higher grade level in DoDEA school, acting as the receiving LEA, regardless of the child's age.
(C) To be admitted to a school in the receiving State, the parent or guardian of a child transferring from a DoDEA (sending) LEA must provide:
(
(
(
(
(2)
(i)
(A) As long as the course is offered by DoDEA, as the receiving LEA, it shall honor placement of a transfer student in courses based on the child's placement or educational assessment in the sending State school.
(B) Course placement includes, but is not limited to, Honors, International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement, vocational, technical, and career pathways courses.
(C) Continuing the child's academic program from the previous school and promoting placement in academically and career challenging courses shall be a primary consideration when DoDEA considers the placement of a transferring child.
(D) DoDEA, acting as the receiving LEA, may perform subsequent evaluations to ensure the child's appropriate course placement.
(ii)
(A) As long as the program is offered by DoDEA, acting as a receiving LEA, it will honor placement of the child in educational programs based on current educational assessments and placement in like programs in the sending State. Such programs include, but are not limited to, gifted and talented programs and English language learners.
(B) The receiving State school may perform subsequent evaluations to ensure the child's appropriate educational program placement.
(iii)
(A) DoDEA, acting as the receiving LEA, will initially provide comparable services to a child with disabilities based on his or her current IEP in compliance with 20 U.S.C. chapter 33, also known and referred to in this part as the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),” as amended, and the requirements of Executive Order 13160. DoDEA may perform subsequent evaluations to ensure the child's appropriate placement consistent with IDEA.
(B) DoDEA, acting as the receiving LEA, will make reasonable accommodations and modifications to address the needs of incoming children with disabilities, in compliance with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794 and E.O.
(iv)
(v)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(i)
(A) DoDEA administrative officials will waive specific courses required for graduation if similar course work has been satisfactorily completed in another LEA or provide reasonable justification for denial.
(B) If DoDEA, as a receiving LEA, does not grant a waiver to a child who would qualify to graduate from the sending school, DoDEA will provide an alternative means of acquiring required coursework so that graduation may occur on time.
(C) If DoDEA, as the receiving LEA, requires a graduation project, volunteer community service hours, or other DoDEA specific requirement, DoDEA may waive those requirements.
(ii)
(A) DoDEA, as a receiving LEA, must:
(
(
(
(B) If the alternatives in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section cannot be accommodated by DoDEA as the receiving LEA for a child transferring in his or her senior year, then the provisions of paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C) of this section will apply.
(iii)
(A) If a child transferring at the beginning or during his or her senior year is ineligible to graduate from DoDEA, as the receiving LEA, after all alternatives have been considered, DoDEA will request a diploma from the sending LEA or SEA. DoDEA will ensure the receipt of a diploma from the sending LEA or SEA, if the child meets the graduation requirements of the sending LEA or SEA.
(B) If one of the States in question is not a member of this Compact, DoDEA, as a receiving state, will use best efforts to facilitate a transferring child's on-time graduation in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(A) and (b)(1)(iv)(B) of this section.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend and update its list of recurring safety zone regulations that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). This notice informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a safety zone. Through this notice the current list of recurring safety zones is proposed to be updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. When these safety zones are enforced, vessel traffic is restricted from specified areas. Additionally, this one proposed rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing separate proposed rules for each individual recurring safety zone and serves to provide notice of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1029 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Petty Officer James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5347, email
The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.
The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley is proposing to establish, amend, and update its current list of recurring safety zone regulations.
These safety zones are proposed to be added, amended, and updated to the list of annually recurring safety zones under 33 CFR 165.801 in Table no. 1 for annual safety zones in the COTP Ohio Valley zone. The Coast Guard will address all comments accordingly, whether through response, additional revision to the regulation, or otherwise. Additionally, these recurring events are provided to the public through local avenues and planned by the local communities.
The current list of annual and recurring safety zones occurring in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR is published under 33 CFR part 165.801. That most recent list was created August 18, 2015 through the rulemaking 80 FR 49911, which finalized the interim rule
The Coast Guard is amending and updating the safety zone regulations under 33 CFR part 165 to include the most up to date list of recurring safety zones for events held on or around navigable waters within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. These events include air shows, fireworks displays, and other marine related events requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes. The current list under 33 CFR 165.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing safety zones, updating to include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove safety zones that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new safety zone, amendment, or removal of an existing safety zone creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single proposed rulemaking will considerably reduce administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the
The Coast Guard encourages the public to participate in this proposed rulemaking through the comment process so that any necessary changes can be identified and implemented in a timely and efficient manner.
33 CFR part 165 contains regulations establishing limited access areas to restrict vessel traffic for the safety of persons and property. Section 165.801 establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain events taking place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring safety zone regulations in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. This proposed rule amends and updates Section 165.801 replacing the current Table 1 for Sector Ohio Valley.
Additionally, this proposed rule adds 13 new recurring safety zones and removes 6 safety zones.
Thirteen new recurring safety zones are proposed to be added under the new Table 1 of § 165.801 for Sector Ohio Valley, as follows:
This proposed rule removes the following 6 safety zone regulations from the existing Table 1 Part of § 165.801 for Sector Ohio Valley, as follows:
The effect of this proposed rule will be to restrict general navigation in the safety zone during the event. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the safety zone will only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP Ohio Valley, or designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event. The proposed annually recurring safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone areas during periods of enforcement. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the safety zones established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 through 1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule is categorically excluded under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0838 at
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
On July 16, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to the Commonwealth's SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
On July 16, 2015, the VADEQ provided a SIP revision to satisfy certain section 110(a)(2) requirements of the CAA for the 2012 PM
This rulemaking action does not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and Virginia's July 16, 2015 SIP submittal did not address this element. Virginia's obligations under section 110(a)(2)(I) will be addressed in a separate process if applicable or necessary for the 2012 PM
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Virginia that addresses the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as infrastructure SIP submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focus upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA, because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of Virginia's July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP revision for the 2012 PM
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counter-parts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which satisfies certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on November 14, 2014, to address emission inventory requirements for the Sheboygan, Wisconsin nonattainment area and the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI) nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the 2011 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0860 at
Edward Doty, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on May 8, 2014, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0151 at
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO
Today's action is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).”
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions
• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from South Carolina that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others. Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA
South Carolina's May 8, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
1. 110(a)(2)(A):
In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start up, shut down and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.
Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B)
3. 110(a)(2)(C)
For the 2010 1-hour SO
EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for major sources, and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II):
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because South Carolina's 2010 1-hour SO
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: A PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another state) a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), South Carolina's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of prong 3 and a NNSR program at 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1,
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation to South Carolina's 2010 1-hour SO
5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii):
6. 110(a)(2)(E)
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), SC DHEC develops, implements and enforces EPA-approved SIP provisions in the State. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced in South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provides the SC DHEC's general legal authority to establish a SIP and implement related plans. In particular, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory authority to “[a]ccept, receive and administer grants or other funds or gifts for the purpose of carrying out any of the purposes of this chapter; [and to] accept, receive and receipt for Federal money given by the Federal government under any Federal law to the State of South Carolina for air or water control activities, surveys or programs.” S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC DHEC statutory authority to establish environmental protection funds, which provide resources for SC DHEC to carry out its obligations under the CAA. Specifically, in Regulation 61-30,
The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are further confirmed when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This provides additional assurances that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under State law has been used to carry out the State's implementation plan and related issues. This information is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA.
As evidence of the adequacy of SC DHEC's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to South Carolina on March 9, 2015, outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA submitted to South Carolina can be accessed at
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that states comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements.
With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South Carolina satisfies the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) for the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control, which is the “board or body which approves permits and enforcement orders” under the CAA in South Carolina, through S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-730. S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-730 provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no person may serve as a member of a governmental regulatory agency that regulates business with which that person is associated,” and S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-700(A) which provides in part that “[n]o public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.” S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5) provides for disclosure of any conflicts of interest by public official, public member or public employee, which meets the requirement of CAA Section 128(a)(2) that “any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.” These State statutes—S.C. Code Ann. Sections 8-13-730, 8-13-700(A), and 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5)—have been approved into the South Carolina SIP as required by CAA section 128. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina has adequate resources for implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO
7. 110(a)(2)(F)
Additionally, South Carolina is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—NO
8. 110(a)(2)(G)
9. 110(a)(2)(H)
10. 110(a)(2)(J)
EPA also notes that SC DHEC maintains a Web site that provides the public with notice of the health hazards associated with SO
11. 110(a)(2)(K)
12. 110(a)(2)(L)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-2-50 prescribes that SC DHEC charge fees for environmental programs it administers pursuant to Federal and State law and regulations including those that govern the costs to review, implement and enforce PSD and NNSR permits. Regulation 61-30,
13. 110(a)(2)(M)
With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's May 8, 2014, SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
In addition, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, South Carolina statute 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on September 3, 2014, to address emission inventory requirements for the Illinois portions of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois ozone nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires emission inventories for all ozone nonattainment areas. The emission inventories contained in Illinois' September 3, 2014, submission meet this CAA requirement.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0664 at
Edward Doty, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On December 14, 2015, the State of Montana submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Billings, Montana, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0205, at
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On June 2, 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS.
On January 16, 2015, MDEQ submitted a request for the EPA to determine that the Billings SO
On April 10, 2015, James Parker of PPL Montana sent a letter to Ed Warner of MDEQ notifying him that the PPL Corette Plant was officially retired on March 18, 2015, and had consumed its last coal on March 3, 2015. On May 13, 2015, Gordon Criswell of PPL Montana sent a letter to MDEQ requesting a revocation of the Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) #2953-00 and Title V Operating Permit #OP2953-08. On May 21, 2015, David Klemp of MDEQ sent a letter to Mr. Criswell informing him that MDEQ was revoking both permits, as PPL had requested, effective immediately.
On December 14, 2015, the State submitted to the EPA a request for redesignation of the Billings 2010 SO
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation of a nonattainment area provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, the EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on
EPA's evaluation of Montana's redesignation request and maintenance plan was based on consideration of the five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). The two primary methods for evaluating ambient air quality impacted by SO
In this action, the EPA is determining that the Billings SO
As shown, the 3-year design value for 2012-2014 at the Coburn Road monitor meets the 2010 SO
As part of Montana's redesignation request, the State submitted information to support a showing that the Coburn Road monitor was sited in the area of maximum ambient SO
In this action, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Billings SO
As noted, Montana separately submitted to the EPA a request for a determination of clean data for the Billings SO
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment under a NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements for that NAAQS under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for that NAAQS for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). The EPA proposes to find that Montana has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Billings SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, the EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. The EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, the EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, the EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy on applicability (
The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before the EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, the EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.
Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Billings SO
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The requirement for an emission inventory can be satisfied by meeting the inventory requirements of the maintenance plan.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” MDEQ has demonstrated that the Billings SO
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, the EPA believes the Montana SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Montana has an approved general conformity SIP for the Billings area.
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Montana has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of the Billings SO
The EPA has fully approved the applicable Montana SIP for the Billings Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. As indicated above, the EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2010 SO
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). The EPA proposes to find that Montana has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Billings SO
To redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Billings SO
CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2010 1-hour SO
As part of a state's maintenance plan for a 2010 SO
In 2014, the Coburn Road monitor reported exceedances of the 2010 SO
The EPA notes that the permanent shutdown of PPL Corette has left the Billings SO
An air agency may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of SO
The EPA considers the inventory projection of zero emissions sufficient to attain and maintain the SO
Montana has committed to continue operating the Coburn Road monitor at its current location in the Billings SO
Each air agency should ensure that it has the legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the 2010 SO
The State of Montana has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Billings 2010 SO
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must also include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. The State listed two types of triggers of its contingency plan. The first, a “warning level response,” will be triggered by a 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum SO
If the warning level response is triggered, the State must conduct a study to determine whether the SO
The EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Montana for the Billings 2010 SO
The EPA is proposing to take the following four separate but related actions: (1) Determine that the Billings SO
The EPA proposes to determine that the Billings SO
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Billings SO
The EPA is also proposing to determine that the Billings SO
In this action, the EPA is not proposing to take any action on the Billings/Laurel SO
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Billings SO
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Do not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of safety inquiry.
FRA is conducting a retrospective review of its locomotive train horn regulations in 49 CFR part 222. As part of its review, FRA is soliciting public comment on whether FRA should modify, streamline, or expand any requirements of FRA's locomotive train horn regulations to reduce paperwork and other economic burdens on the rail industry and States
Written comments must be received by July 5, 2016. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
Ron Ries, Staff Director, Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespasser Programs Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6299; Kathryn Gresham, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6052); or Brian Roberts, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6052).
Under its general statutory rulemaking authority, FRA promulgates and enforces rules as part of a comprehensive regulatory program to address all areas of railroad safety.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and Executive Order 13610 (“Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”), FRA continually reviews its regulations and revises them as needed to: (1) Ensure the regulatory burden is not excessive; (2) clarify the application of existing requirements and remove requirements that are no longer necessary; and (3) keep pace with emerging technology, changing operational realities, and safety concerns. Therefore, through this Notice of Safety Inquiry, FRA seeks to gather input from the rail industry and State and local authorities on any regulatory burdens associated with 49 CFR part 222, while still maintaining the highest level of safety at our Nation's public grade crossings.
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to periodically conduct retrospective analyses of their existing rules to identify requirements that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal any problematic regulatory provisions identified during the review. Additionally, Executive Order 13610 requires agencies to take continuing steps to reassess regulatory requirements, and where appropriate, to streamline, improve, or eliminate those requirements. In particular, Executive Order 13610 emphasizes that agencies should prioritize “initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens.” Therefore, FRA is specifically interested in receiving comments on how the agency can reduce the regulatory burden on the regulated community and the public in a way that would provide monetary savings or reduce paperwork burdens without negatively impacting safety at public grade crossings.
FRA began the rulemaking process for 49 CFR part 222 on January 13, 2000, when it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Due to the substantial and wide-ranging public interest in the NPRM, FRA conducted a series of twelve public hearings throughout the United States. More than 350 people testified at these hearings.
On December 18, 2003, FRA published an Interim Final Rule in the
FRA then published a final rule in the
Since 2006, FRA has not issued any substantive revisions to 49 CFR part 222. Therefore, FRA is soliciting public comments on any needed revisions to the regulations as part of its retrospective review.
FRA regulations require that engineers sound their locomotive horns while approaching public grade crossings until the lead locomotive fully occupies the crossing.
Research and years of experience show that the use of train horns,
FRA regulations authorize only public authorities to establish quiet zones.
If a public authority wants to establish a new quiet zone that will include a pedestrian crossing, a private highway-rail grade crossing that allows access to the public, or a private highway-rail grade crossing that provides access to an active industrial or commercial site, a diagnostic team (made up of representatives from the railroad, relevant State agencies, the public authority, and FRA, if possible) must evaluate the pedestrian or private highway-rail grade crossing and the crossing must be equipped or treated in accordance with the diagnostic team recommendations.
Public authorities can establish quiet zones through either the public authority designation process or the public authority application process to FRA.
As an alternative, communities may also choose to silence routine locomotive horn sounding through the installation of wayside horns at public grade crossings. Wayside horns are train-activated stationary acoustic devices at grade crossings that are directed at highway traffic as a one-for-one substitute for train horns.
During the new quiet zone establishment process, the regulations require public authorities to provide a Notice of Intent to the railroads that operate within the quiet zone, and to the State agencies responsible for highway and grade crossing safety, to solicit comments on the proposed quiet zone.
While FRA solicits discussion and comments on all of 49 CFR part 222, we particularly encourage comments on the following questions:
• How can FRA decrease the barriers local communities encounter when establishing a quiet zone?
• Should 49 CFR part 222 allow greater variances in highway-rail configurations when determining safety calculations for local communities establishing quiet zones? If so, what variances would be appropriate?
• Should FRA amend Appendix A to 49 CFR part 222 to include common alternative grade crossing safety measures and emerging grade crossing safety technologies? If so, what measures and technologies would be appropriate?
• What further actions can FRA take to mitigate train horn noise impacts for local communities while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians?
• How can FRA change how train horns are sounded at grade crossings while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians?
• Should railroads be required to file an official opinion of support or opposition to the establishment of a new quiet zone?
• Should train speed be a factor that is considered when establishing a new quiet zone?
• Should there be an online process for submitting quiet zone notices, applications, and required paperwork, in whole or in part?
• Should FRA be a required recipient of the Notice of Intent to establish a quiet zone?
• Should FRA provide additional guidance on how to measure the length of a quiet zone? If so, what guidance would be helpful?
• Should FRA develop a process to address modifications to grade crossings within an existing quiet zone? If so, please describe what process would be helpful?
• Should FRA require diagnostic reviews for all grade crossings within proposed quiet zones instead of requiring them only for pedestrian (pathway) grade crossings and private grade crossings that allow access to the public or which provide access to active industrial or commercial sites?
• How should FRA address safety measures that no longer meet the requirements for SSMs or ASMs?
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; extension of comment period.
We are extending the comment period for our notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement in connection with potential changes to the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the notice published on February 5, 2016 (81 FR 6225-6229) is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 21, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Sidney W. Abel, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3896.
On February 5, 2016, we published in the
The notice described the range of proposed reasonable alternatives that are currently under consideration for evaluation in the EIS and the issues that will be evaluated in the EIS, and requested public comment to further define the issues and scope of the EIS' alternatives. We also requested public comment to help us identify other environmental issues that should be examined in the EIS.
Comments on the notice were required to be received on or before March 7, 2016. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2014-0054 for an additional 45 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 6, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Dixie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Cedar City, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mountain Standard Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at 1789 North Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City City, UT 84721, in the Dixie National Forest Supervisors Office, in the SO Conference Room. The meeting will also a have a VTC feed to the Powell Ranger District office, Main Conference room, in Panguitch, UT 84759, with the address of, 225 East Center Street. A conference call line will also be available. The phone number will be 888-844-9904 with an access code of 6404629.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Jason Hamilton, Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, by phone at 435-865-3794 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Listen to Dixie Resource Advisory Committee, Title II project proposals, and for the Resource Advisory Committee to vote and recommend projects to be approved by the Designated Federal Officer on the Dixie National Forest.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Friday, March 25th, 2016 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Jason Hamilton, 1789 North Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84721; by email to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
NCSES sponsors surveys of R&D activities of Federal agencies, higher education institutions, and private industries. The results of these surveys provide a consistent information base for both federal and state government officials, industry professionals, and researchers to use in formulating public policy and planning in science and technology. These surveys allow for the analysis of current and historical trends of R&D in the U.S. and in international comparisons of R&D with other countries. The data collected from the SGRD fills a void that previously existed for collection of R&D activities. Although NCSES conducted periodic data collections of state government R&D in 1995, 1988 and 1987, more frequent collection was necessary to account for the changing dynamic of state governments' role in performing and funding R&D and their role as fiduciary intermediaries of federal funds for R&D. The survey is a census of state government departments, agencies, commissions, public authorities, and other dependent entities as defined by the Census Bureau's Census of Governments program, that performed or funded R&D activities in a given fiscal year.
The Census Bureau, serving as collection agent, employs a methodology similar to the one used to collect information from state and local governments on other established censuses and surveys. This methodology involves identifying a central coordinator in each state who will assist Census Bureau staff in identifying appropriate state agencies to be surveyed. Since not all state agencies have the budget authority or operational capacity to perform or fund R&D, NCSES and Census Bureau staffs have identified those agencies most likely to perform or fund R&D based on state session laws, authorizing legislation, budget authority, previous R&D activities, and reports issued by state government agencies. The state coordinators, based on their knowledge of the state government's own activities and priorities, are asked to confirm which of the selected agencies identified should be sent the survey for a given fiscal year or to add additional agencies to the survey frame. These state coordinators also verify the final responses at the end of the data collection cycle and may assist with nonresponse follow-up with individual state agencies. The collection approach using a central state coordinator is used successfully at the Census Bureau in surveys of local school districts, as well as the annual surveys of state and local government finance.
As part of the President's FY 2014 Budget Request to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended NCSES receive an additional “$500,000 to increase the frequency of the Survey of State Government Research and Development.” Starting with the FY 2016 survey cycle, NCSES will collect data on an annual basis instead of a biennial format that was used for state government fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 2012 and 2013, and 2014 and 2015. This change from biennial to annual collection will increase the frequency and timeliness of survey results; thus increasing the utility of the statistics for data users, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the state governments themselves, while also allowing for the annual inclusion of these data in NCSES's own National Patterns of R&D report. Currently, NCSES must develop estimates for the non-Federal government component of the National Patterns data during the survey's off-year. Increasing the frequency by changing to an annual data collection cycle will allow for more accurate National Patterns of R&D. Results from the National Patterns are used by OMB during the budget formulation process, as well as by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and others interested in science and technology investments, and international competitiveness of R&D.
The 2016 survey will follow the same content that was collected during the FY 2014 and FY 2015 Survey of State Government R&D.
The survey announcements and forms used in the SGRD are:
Survey Announcement. The Governor's letter is mailed to the Governor's Office to announce the survey collection and to solicit assignment of a State Coordinator. The State Coordinator's Announcement is sent electronically at the beginning of each survey period to solicit assistance in identifying state agencies which may perform or fund R&D activities. Later, state coordinators are asked to review final data submitted by state agencies.
Form SRD-1. This form contains item descriptions and definitions of the research and development items collected by the Census Bureau on behalf of the NSF. It is used primarily as a worksheet and instruction guide by the state agencies. All state agencies supply their data by electronic means.
Final survey results produced by NCSES contain state and national estimates and are useful to a variety of data users interested in R&D performance, including: The National Science Board; the OMB; the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other science policy makers; institutional researchers; and private organizations; and many state governments.
Legislators, policy officials, and researchers rely on statistics to make informed decisions about R&D investment at the Federal, state, and local level. These statistics are derived from the existing NCSES sponsored surveys of Federal agencies, higher education institutions, and private industry. The total picture of R&D expenditures, however, had been incomplete due to the lack of data from state governments prior to this implementation of the SGRD in 2006, which now fills that void.
State government officials and policy makers garner the most benefit from the results of this survey. Governors and legislatures need a reliable, comprehensive source of data to help in evaluating how best to attract the high-tech R&D industries to their state. Officials are able to evaluate their investment in R&D based on comparisons with other states. These comparisons include the sources of funding, the type of R&D being conducted, and the type of R&D performer.
State governments serve a unique role within the national portfolio of R&D. Not only are they both performers and funders of R&D like other sectors such as the Federal Government, higher education, or industry, but they also serve as fiduciary intermediaries between the Federal Government and other R&D performers while also providing state specific funds for R&D.
NSF also uses data from this survey in various publications produced about the state of R&D in the U.S. The Science and Engineering Indicators, for example, is a biennial report mandated by Congress and describes quantitatively the condition of the country's R&D efforts, and includes data from the SGRD. Survey results are also included in the National Patterns of Research and Development report's tabulations.
The availability of state R&D survey results are posted to NSF's Web page allowing for public access from a variety of other data users as well. Media, university researchers, nonprofit organizations, and foreign government officials are also consumers of state R&D statistics. All users are able to utilize this information in an attempt to better understand the Nation's R&D resources.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
On October 27, 2015, BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC, operator of Subzone 38A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (“cold-rolled steel”) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The collapsed entity JSW Steel Limited (“JSWSL”)/JSW Coated Products Limited (“JSCPL”) (collectively “JSW”) is the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2016.
Patrick O'Connor or Jeffrey Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989 or (202) 482-2769, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
The Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government because of Snowstorm “Jonas”. Thus, all of the deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination is now February 29, 2016.
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum, which we incorporate by reference herein, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f) and the
Department's practice, we are treating JSWSL and JSCPL as a single entity, JSW, for the purposes of this preliminary determination.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from India, as described in the scope of the investigation, that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds export price, as indicated in the table above,
We intend to disclose the calculations that we performed in this investigation to interested parties in this proceeding within five days after the date of public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. An electronically-filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify the information that will be relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On January 26, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), JSW requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now February 29, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from the United Kingdom. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from the United Kingdom as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for 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, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 22, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), Tata Steel UK Ltd. requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for the respondents, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise;
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (“cold-rolled steel”) from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”) and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation (“NSSMC”) are the mandatory respondents in this investigation. The estimated weighted average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2016.
Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
On November 30, 2015, the Department published notice of the 50-day postponement for the preliminary determination in this investigation, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available to assign estimated weighted-average dumping margins to the mandatory respondents, JFE and NSSMC, because JFE and NSSMC each informed the Department that they would not respond to the Department's AD questionnaire and, therefore, would not participate in this investigation as mandatory respondents.
After JFE and NSSMC informed the Department that they would not participate in this investigation as mandatory respondents, we selected Hitachi Metals Limited (“Hitachi”) as a voluntary respondent on December 10, 2015.
On October 30, 2015, Petitioners filed timely critical circumstances allegations, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration from Japan.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In addition, the Department preliminarily determines that voluntary respondent Hitachi Metals Limited has no sales of subject merchandise during to POI to examine.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Japan, as described in the scope of the investigation, that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by the mandatory respondents JFE and NSSMC, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Japan, as described in the scope of the investigation, from the mandatory respondents that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the date on which suspension of liquidation is first ordered (
We will disclose the calculations that we performed in this investigation to interested parties in this proceeding within five days after the date of public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days of the deadline date for the submission of case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. An electronically-filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Because none of the mandatory respondents in this investigation provided information requested by the Department and the Department preliminarily determines each of the mandatory respondents to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product
Steel products included in the scope of these investigations are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AI-ISS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is ultra-tempered automotive steel, which is hardened, tempered, surface polished, and meets the following specifications:
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margin is shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2016.
Scott Hoefke or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0679, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Because none of the potential respondents in this investigation submitted separate rate applications, they are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, the PRC-wide entity did not provide necessary quantity-and-value data the Department requested. Therefore, in making this preliminary determination, the Department relied on facts available and, because respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting a rate from among the facts otherwise available.
On October 30, 2015, Petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from the PRC.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from the PRC as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstance, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of investigation was published. Accordingly, for the PRC-wide entity, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice. We will also instruct CBP, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), to require a cash deposit equal to the margins indicated in the chart above.
With respect to the PRC-wide entity, we find that export subsidies constitute 66.03 percent
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so in writing within 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the
Parties must file their case and rebuttal briefs, and any requests for a hearing, electronically using ACCESS.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Ball bearing steels;
• Tool steels;
• Silico-manganese steel;
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented
• Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Brazil are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2016.
Hermes Pinilla or Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
On January 27, 2016, the Department exercised its discretion to toll its administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. Thus, the deadline for this preliminary determination has been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for this preliminary determination is February 29, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Brazil as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The rates for CSN and Usiminas, when adjusted for export subsidies, are 34.8 and 35.11 percent, respectively; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise, less export subsidies; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters when adjusted for export subsidies is 34.95 percent.
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for 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, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 22, and February 25, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), CSN and Usiminas requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Ball bearing steels;
• Tool steels;
• Silico-manganese steel;
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.
• Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective March 7, 2016.
Victoria Cho or Steve Bezirganian, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202) 482-1131.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 24, 2015.
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now February 29, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai Steel Company and for Daewoo International Corporation and POSCO
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Korea, as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as indicated in the chart above,
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of public announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for 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, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 3, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b) and (e), DWI (and affiliate POSCO) and Hyundai Steel Company requested that, contingent upon an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV for the respondents, the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, in part; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Ball bearing steels;
• Tool steels;
• Silico-manganese steel;
• Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.
• Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza, 81 Greenwich Ave., Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 732-6000; fax: (401) 732-0261.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review the general workload for 2016 based on Council priorities and will discuss recommendations for the Council to consider for setting overall five year research priorities. The Committee will also review outcomes from the recent scallop workshop and may discuss recommendations for the Council to consider in future actions. The Committee will review a work plan for the required five year report that will evaluate the limited access general category IFQ program. Other business may be discussed.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza, 801 Greenwich Ave., Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 732-6000; fax: (401) 732-0261.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will review the general workload for 2016 based on Council priorities and will discuss recommendations for the Committee and Council to consider for setting overall five year research priorities. The Advisory Panel will also review outcomes from the recent scallop workshop and may discuss recommendations for the Committee and Council to consider in future actions. The Advisory Panel will review a work plan for the required five year report that will evaluate the limited access general category IFQ program. Other business may be discussed.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 6, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Suzanne Russell, Human Dimensions Team, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112, (206) 860-3274 or
This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The revision consists of minor changes to the information collection tool.
Historically, changes in fisheries management regulations have been shown to result in impacts to individuals within the fishery. An understanding of social impacts in fisheries—achieved through the collection of data on fishing communities, as well as on individuals who fish—is a requirement under several federal laws. Laws such as the National Environmental Protection Act and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (as amended 2007) describe such requirements. The collection of this data not only helps to inform legal requirements for the existing management actions, but will inform future management actions requiring equivalent information.
Literature indicates fisheries rationalization programs have an impact on those individuals participating in the affected fishery. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council implemented a rationalization program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish limited entry trawl fishery in January 2011. This research aims to continue to study the individuals in the affected fishery over the long term. Data collection will shift from a timing related to changes in the catch share program design elements to a five-year cycle. In addition, the study will compare results to previous data collection efforts in 2010, 2012, and 2015/2016. The data collected will provide updated and more comprehensive descriptions of the industry as well as allow for analysis of changes the rationalization program may create in the fishery. The measurement of these changes will lead to a greater understanding of the social impacts the management measure may have on the individuals in the fishery. To achieve these goals, it is critical to continue data collection for comparison to previously collected data and establish a time-series which will identify changes over the long term. Analysis can also be correlated with any regulatory adjustments due to the upcoming five-year review of the program. This study will continue data collection efforts to achieve the stated objectives.
This study is managed by the Human Dimensions Team, Ecosystem Science Program, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
Verbal communication and collaboration with key informants, focus groups, paper surveys, electronic surveys, and in person interviews will be utilized in combination to obtain the greatest breadth of information as possible.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Webinar connection details will be available at:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to the specification of ABC for blueline tilefish for federal waters off the Northeastern United States north of the Virginia-North Carolina border. The Council anticipates that additional SSC discussion may be necessary following the SSC meeting currently scheduled for March 15-16, 2016 in Baltimore, MD. Information about the joining the webinar will be posted on the Council's Web site at
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “Exemption for swaps between affiliates,” and Collection Number 3038-0104 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Peter A. Kals, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5466; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
10:00 a.m., Friday, March 11, 2016.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Employers of National Service Annual Survey for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Erin Dahlin, at 202-606-6931 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within April 6, 2016.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, DOD.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at the Falcon Club, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO. on March 18, 2016. On Friday, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, curriculum, instruction, infrastructure, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; USAFA Admissions Update; Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation Update. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to add a new system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a new system of records, DMDC 23 DoD, entitled “Investigations and Resolutions Case Management System (IRCMS).” This system will serve as the Department of Defense's enterprise-wide, web-based tracking and case management application that provides an effective mechanism to manage and track Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints submitted for investigation.
Comments will be accepted on or before April 6, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571)372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Investigations and Resolutions Case Management System (IRCMS)
Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS), Mark Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Enterprise Human Resources Information Systems (EHRIS), Alexandria, VA 22350-1100.
Applicants for Federal employment and current and former Department of Defense Federal employees who file complaints of discrimination or reprisal, appeals of agency decisions with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Commission, petitions for review of decisions of the Merit System Protection Board, or request for review of final decisions in negotiated grievance actions.
Complainant's full name, date of birth, race, religion, gender, disability information, national origin; employment information; security clearance and educational information (as it relates to the nature of the EEO complaint); prior EEO activity; home address and telephone number; work telephone number; Agency Docket Number; and information about the alleged discrimination basis(es) and requested relief.
29 CFR 1614, Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity; E.O. 12106, Transfer of Certain Equal Employment Enforcement Functions; E.O. 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, as amended; and Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, Volume 1614, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Investigation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints.
Provides an effective mechanism to manage and track EEO complaints submitted for investigation. The system provides a comprehensive repository for case information, electronic file management, and a full-featured report generation module to meet a variety of reporting requirements and program evaluation needs. The IRCMS includes the capability to enter and collect data, manage case deadlines, generate reports and metrics as required, and facilitate case management and program improvement decision-making within DoD. The information is also used to respond to individual Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Congressional requests, and performance metrics for employees.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Law Enforcement Routine Use. If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use. Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management Routine Use. A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Disclosure to the Merit Systems Protection Board Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel for the purpose of litigation, including administrative proceedings, appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM or component rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices; including administrative proceedings involving any individual subject of a DoD investigation, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.
Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found Online at:
Electronic storage media.
Complainant name and/or docket number.
Physical controls include use of visitor registers and identification badges, electronic key card access, and closed-circuit television monitoring. Technical controls including intrusion detection systems, secure socket layer encryption using DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificates, firewalls, and virtual private networks which protect the data in transit and at rest. Physical and electronic access is limited to individuals who are properly screened and cleared on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their official duties. Usernames, passwords, and Common Access Cards, in addition to role-based access controls are used to control access to the systems data. Procedures are in place to deter and detect browsing and unauthorized access including periodic security audits and monitoring of users' security practices.
Disposition pending (treat records as permanent until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the retention and disposition schedule).
Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS), Mark Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Enterprise Human Resources Information Systems (EHRIS), Alexandria, VA 22350-1100.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address inquiries to Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS), Mark Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Enterprise Human Resources Information Systems (EHRIS), Alexandria, VA 22350-1100.
Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and Agency Docket Number.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Signed, written requests should contain the name and number of this system of records notice along with the individual's full name and Agency Docket Number.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Office of the Secretary of Defense Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
The individual and the Servicing EEO Office.
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 16-04 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Non-MDE items include: Control Indicator Unit Replacement (CIUR), Smart Card Assemblies (SCA), High Capacity Cards (HCC), User Data Modules (UDM), Repeaters, COMSEC Key Loaders, initial spares, consumables, support equipment, technical data, repair and return support, engineering design, Group A and Group B installation, flight test and certification, warranties, contractor provided familiarization and training, U.S. Government (USG) manpower and services, and Field Service Representatives (FSR). The total estimated program cost is $225 million.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) requested a possible sale of eight (8) AN/AAQ-24 (V)N LAIRCM for the UAE's C-17 aircraft. Each C-17 aircraft configuration for the LAIRCM system consists of the following major defense equipment (MDE): three (3) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA), six (6) Ultra-Violet Missile Warning System (UVMWS) Sensors AN/AAR-54, one (1) LAIRCM System Processor Replacement (LSPR). The sale includes spares bringing the MDE total to thirty-seven (37) GLTA AN/AAQ-24 (V)Ns, nineteen (19) LSPR AN/AAQ-24 (V)Ns, and seventy-four (74) UVMWS Sensors AN/AAR-54. The sale also includes the following non-MDE items: Control Indicator Unit Replacements (CIUR), Smart Card Assemblies (SCA), High Capacity Cards (HCC), User Data Modules (UDM), Repeaters, COMSEC Key Loaders, initial spares, consumables, support equipment, technical data, repair and return support, engineering design, Group A and Group B installation, flight test and certification, U.S. Government manpower and services, and Field Service Representatives (FSR). The total estimated value of MDE is $82.664 million. The total estimated program cost is $225 million.
This proposed sale enhances the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a partner country, which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed purchase of LAIRCM to provide for the protection of UAE's C-17 fleet enhances the safety of UAE airlift aircraft engaging in humanitarian and resupply missions. LAIRCM facilitates a more robust capability into areas of increased missile threats. The UAE will have no problem absorbing and using the AN/AAQ-24 (V)N LAIRCM system.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois. The main sub-contractor is Northrop Grumman Corporation of Rolling Meadows, Illinois. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
This sale includes provisions for one (1) FSR to live in the UAE for up to two (2) years. Implementation of this proposed sale requires multiple temporary trips to the UAE involving U.S. Government or contractor representatives over a period of up to six (6) years for program execution, delivery, technical support, and training.
(vii)
Department for Deployment Health, Naval Health Research Center, DON, DOD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Naval Health Research Center, DoD Center for Deployment Health Research, Department 164, ATTN: Millennium Cohort Program Principal Investigators, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA 92106-3521, or call (619) 553-7335.
Persons eligible to respond to this survey are those civilians now separated from military service who initially enrolled, gave consent and participated in the Millennium Cohort Study while on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or US Coast Guard during the first, second, third, or fourth panel enrollment periods in 2001-2003, 2004-2006, 2007-2008, or 2011-2012 respectively, as well as those civilians that choose to participate in the Millennium Cohort Family Study.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 May 6, 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 Valerie Sherrer, 202-377-3547.
The Department of Education (ED), in
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.326M.
This priority is:
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that will assess how models can: (a) Improve literacy outcomes for English Learners
The most recent average scale scores
Children must possess the ability to read for understanding in order to meet college- and career-ready standards (Foorman & Wanzek, 2015). However, children must first develop basic literacy skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, to become proficient readers (National Reading Panel, 2000) and to read for understanding.
Therefore, models should be designed to build literacy skills for ELSWDs as a stepping stone to reading for understanding. Approaches to improve literacy must include a combination of effective instruction, modeling, professional development, and evidence-based teaching practices that are appropriate for ELSWDs in both classrooms and small group settings (Giroir, Grimaldo, Vaughn, & Roberts, 2015; Klingner & Soltero-Gonzalez, 2009). In addition, research suggests that proposed models should be replicable across multiple contexts (
(a) The model's core intervention components (
(1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, universal screening, progress monitoring, and effective core instruction;
(2) Culturally responsive principles within each component of the framework;
(3) Interventions that meet the needs of the specific population and are supported by scientifically based research;
(4) Practices that are valid and reliable and ensure appropriate identification of ELs as having disabilities;
(5) Measures of literacy outcomes,
(6) Measures of language proficiency in the child's first language and English; and
(7) Measures of the model's social validity,
(b) The model's core implementation components must include:
(1) Strategies for selecting
(i) Each project must include at least three elementary schools with students in grades three through five or three through six. Each school must have at least 40 percent and no fewer than 100 students who have been identified as ELs in these grades; and
(ii) In each of the schools, at least 10 percent of the identified ELs in grades three through five or three through six must be ELSWDs with literacy goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs);
(2) A lag site implementation, which involves selecting one of the three sites in year one of the project period to begin implementation of the project's model for at least three years, with the other two schools beginning implementation in year two;
(3) A professional development component that includes an evidence-based coaching strategy to enable staff to implement the interventions with fidelity; and
(4) Measures of the performance of the professional development (
(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include:
(1) Documentation that permits current and future practitioners to replicate and tailor the model at any site;
(2) Strategies for the grantee to sustain the model, such as developing easily accessible training materials or coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future trainers.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
(a) A project design that is at least supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice) that supports the promise (
(b) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed model demonstration project. A logic model used in connection with this priority
The following Web sites provide examples for constructing logic models:
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project to improve literacy outcomes for ELSWDs, including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the following:
(1) All the intervention components, including culturally responsive principles and, at a minimum, those components listed under paragraph (a) under the heading
(2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, and system outcome measures and social validity measures. The measures should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in an appendix.
(3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading
(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, ethnicity, gender, grade level, and age for all ELSWDs at all implementation sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading
(ii) Whether the implementation sites are high-poverty, high-need, rural, urban, or suburban LEAs or schools; and
Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (f)(1) of these application requirements.
(iii) The lag design for implementation consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading
(4) All the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the model, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (c) under the heading
(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed and complete description must include:
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) for data, a timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show how the outcome (
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect and analyze data on positive changes to child, teacher, and systems outcome measures over time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child or system outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.
(e) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one half-day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;
(2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, occurring twice during the project performance period; and
(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer.
(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other relevant Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA centers that might disseminate information on the model or support the scale-up efforts of an effective model;
(b) Maintain ongoing (
(c) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration activities that meets government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
The priority is:
Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise” (as defined in this notice). The proposed project must include:
(a) A detailed review of the research that meets at least the evidence of promise standard and that supports the promise (
(b) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed model demonstration project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; and
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project to improve literacy outcomes for ELSWDs, including how and when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description must contain all of the implementation components, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (a) and linked to supporting literature. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in an appendix.
An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify up to two study citations that meet this standard.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and
(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) The ability to meet the State's proficient level of achievement on State assessments described in section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA;
(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (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.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4.
(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.326M.
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, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Literacy Outcomes for English Learners with Disabilities in Grades Three through Five or Three through Six competition, CFDA number 84.326M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Literacy Outcomes for English Learners with Disabilities in Grades Three through Five or Three through Six competition 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 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 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 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-
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 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 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: Tara Courchaine, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5143, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. FAX: (202) 245-7590.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326M) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326M) 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.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Tara Courchaine, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5143, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-6462.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on March 15-16, 2016, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France in connection with a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) on March 17, 2016, in connection with a meeting of the SEQ on that day.
March 15-17, 2016.
9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France.
Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-5000.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
Meetings of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France, on March 15, 2016, commencing at 2:00 p.m., continuing at 9:30 a.m. on March 16, 2016 and again at 9:30 a.m. on March 17, 2016. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets (SOM) on March 17, to be held at the same location commencing at 9:30 a.m. The IAB will also hold a preparatory meeting among company representatives at the same location at 8:30 a.m. on March 16. The agenda for this preparatory meeting is to review the agenda for the SEQ meeting.
The agenda of the joint meeting of the SEQ is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
The agenda of the SEQ meeting on March 17, 2106 is under the control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is expected that the SEQ and the SOM will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Human Reliability Program (HRP), OMB Control Number 1910-5122. This information collection consists of forms that will certify to DOE that respondents were advised of the requirements for occupying or continuing to occupy an HRP position. The forms include: Human Reliability Program Certification (DOE F 470.3), Acknowledgement and Agreement to Participate in the Human Reliability Program (DOE F 470.4), Authorization and Consent to Release Human Reliability Program (HRP) Records in Connection with HRP (DOE F 470.5), Refusal of Consent (DOE F 470.6), and Human Reliability Program (HRP) Alcohol Testing Form (DOE F 470.7). The HRP is a security and safety reliability program for individuals who apply for or occupy certain positions that are critical to the national security. It requires an initial and annual supervisory review, medical assessment, management evaluation, and a DOE personnel security review of all applicants or incumbents. It is also used to ensure that employees assigned to nuclear explosive duties do not have emotional, mental, or physical conditions that could result in an accidental or unauthorized detonation of nuclear explosives.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before April 6, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 and to Regina Cano U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Corporate Security Strategy, Analysis and Special Operations (AU-1.2), 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone at (202) 586-7079, by fax at (202) 586-3333, or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5122; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Human Reliability Program; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: This collection provides for DOE management to ensure that individuals who occupy HRP positions meet program standards of reliability and physical and mental suitability;
42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5814-5815; 42 U.S.C. 7101
On February 25, 2016, Megan Holleran filed an emergency motion pursuant to Rule 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
Issues related to the acquisition of property rights by a pipeline under the eminent domain provisions of section 7(h) of the NGA are matters for the applicable state or federal court. Since the Commission has no responsibility or jurisdiction over these matters, the subject motion is rejected.
This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission of this notice must be filed within 30 days of its issuance, as provided in section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act,
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 19, 2016, pursuant to Rule 602 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602 (2015), Colonial Pipeline Company and American Airlines, Inc. (collectively, the Parties) filed an extension and amendment of the settlement agreement. The Parties seek Commission approval to extend and amend the settlement agreement entered into on December 13, 2013 and approved by the Commission in
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting information collections FERC-538, FERC-740, FERC-729, FERC-715, FERC-592, FERC-60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by April 6, 2016.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos. 1902-0061 (FERC-538), 1902-0254 (FERC-740), 1902-0238 (FERC-729), 1902-0171 (FERC-715), 1902-0157 (FERC-592), or 1902-0215 (FERC-60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC16-2-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Order No. 771 provided the Commission access to e-Tags by requiring that Purchasing-Selling Entities
In early 2014, the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) incorporated the requirement that the Commission be added to the “CC” list on e-Tags as part of the tagging process.
• 15 minutes legal (code 23-0000), $129.87 hourly.
• 45 minutes information and record clerk (code 43-4199), $37.50 hourly.
Additionally, FERC has the authority to issue a permit to construct electric transmission facilities if a state has withheld approval for more than a year or has conditioned its approval in such a manner that it will not significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not economically feasible.
• Contact information for the FERC-715;
• Base case power flow data (if it does not participate in the development and use of regional power flow data);
• Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the respondent for transmission planning;
• A detailed description of the transmission planning reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
• A detailed description of the respondent's transmission planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in performing transmission planning studies); and
• A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria using its stated assessment practices.
The FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part of their regulatory oversight functions which includes:
• The review of rates and charges;
• The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
• The consolidation and mergers;
• The adequacy of supply and;
• Reliability of nation's transmission grid
The FERC-715 enables the Commission to facilitate and resolve transmission disputes. Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability (OER) uses the FERC-715 data to help protect and improve the reliability and security of the nation's bulk power system. OER oversees the development and review of mandatory reliability and security standards and ensures compliance with the approved standards by the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system. OER also monitors and addresses issues concerning the nation's bulk power system including assessments of resource adequacy and reliability.
Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
Respondents maintain and provide the information required by Part 358 on their internet Web sites. When the Commission requires a pipeline to post information on its Web site following a disclosure of non-public information to its marketing affiliate, non-affiliated shippers obtain comparable access to the non-public transportation information, which allows them to compete with marketing affiliates on a more equal basis.
This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate pipeline marketing affiliates. Commission staff considers discounts given to shippers in litigated rate cases.
Without this information collection:
• The Commission would be unable to effectively monitor whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their marketing affiliates; and
• non-affiliated shippers and state commissions and others would be unable to determine if they have been harmed by affiliate preference or prepare evidence for proceedings following the filing of a complaint.
Form No. 60 is an annual reporting requirement under 18 CFR 366.23 for centralized service companies. The report's function is to collect financial information (including balance sheet, assets, liabilities, billing and charges for associated and non-associated companies) from centralized service companies subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC. Unless Commission rule exempts or grants a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3 and 366.4 to the holding company system, every centralized service company in a holding company system must prepare and file electronically with the FERC the Form No. 60, pursuant to the General Instructions in the form.
FERC-61 is a filing requirement for service companies in holding company systems (including special purpose companies) that are currently exempt or granted a waiver of FERC's regulations and would not have to file FERC Form 60. Instead, those service companies are required to file, on an annual basis, a narrative description of the service company's functions during the prior calendar year (FERC-61). In complying, a holding company may make a single filing on behalf of all of its service company subsidiaries.
FERC prescribed a mandated preservation of records requirement for holding companies and service companies (unless otherwise exempted by FERC). This requires them to maintain and make available to FERC, their books and records. The preservation of records requirement provides for uniform records retention by holding companies and centralized service companies subject to PUHCA 2005.
Data from the FERC Form 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A provide a level of transparency that: (1) Helps protect ratepayers from pass-through of improper service company costs, (2) enables FERC to review and determine cost allocations (among holding company members) for certain non-power goods and services, (3) aids FERC in meeting its oversight and market monitoring obligations, and (4) benefits the public, both as ratepayers and investors. In addition, the FERC's audit staff uses these records during compliance reviews and special analyses.
If data from the FERC Form 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A were not available, FERC would not be able to meet its statutory responsibilities, under EPAct 1992, EPAct of 2005, and PUHCA 2005, and FERC would not have all of the regulatory mechanisms necessary to ensure customer protection.
In addition
Total record storage cost for FERC-555A for all entities is $40,288.75.
The total annual cost (including burden hours [from table above] and record storage cost) of FERC-555A is $3,356,958.75.
Take notice that on February 12, 2016, Port Barre Investments, L.L.C. (d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage) (Bobcat), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for an amendment to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued to Bobcat on March 19, 2009 in Docket No. CP09-19-000, as amended by Commission orders on March 31, 2010 in Docket No. CP10-30-000, and on April 8, 2011 in Docket No. CP11-124-000. The March 19 Order authorized Bobcat to construct, own, operate, and maintain three additional natural gas storage facilities (Cavern Nos. 3, 4, and 5) at the salt dome in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. With this application, Bobcat is seeking authorization to amend its certificate to reflect a change in the base gas capacity for Cavern Well No. 4 from 2.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 3.5 Bcf, and a change in total gas capacity for Cavern Well No. 4 from 12.4 Bcf to 13.4 Bcf, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. No changes are proposed by Bobcat to the certificated working gas capacity for any of the caverns.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Bobcat Gas Storage, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or by calling (713) 627-4102 (telephone) or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR. 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 12, 2016, pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
The complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
On February 9, 2016, General Electric Company (transferor) and Aclara Meters LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license of the Somersworth Project No. 3820. The project is located on the Salmon Falls River in Stafford County, New Hampshire and York County, Maine. The project does not occupy federal lands.
The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Somersworth Project from the transferor to the transferee.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 25, 2016, Westar Energy, Inc., on behalf of Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC, submitted a request for a Form No. 715 filing waiver.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 16, 2016, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP16-74-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) on its existing PM-117 pipeline, replace a segment of Line P-240, and upgrade appurtenant facilities. Specifically, Columbia proposes to: (i) Increase the MAOP of Line PM-117 from 295 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 360 psig in Johnson and Martin Counties, Kentucky; (ii) replace an 8-inch-diameter bridle setting on Line P-240 with a 10-inch-diameter bridle and approximately 200 feet of 8-inch-diameter pipeline with 10-inch-diameter pipeline in Lawrence County, Kentucky; and (iii) install appurtenances. Columbia states that the proposed activities will allow it to deliver 20,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to its shipper. Columbia estimates the cost of the proposed project to be approximately $2.7 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Tyler Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, by telephone at (713) 386-3797.
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Defense Programs, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of meetings be announced in the
March 18, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Loretta Martin, Office of RDT&E (NA-113), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of comment period.
EPA issued a notice in the
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844, must be received on or before April 14, 2016.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
Kelly Ballard, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-8126; email address:
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
7 U.S.C. 136
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 March 29, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Jacqueline Mendel (202-326-2603), 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 February 26, 2016), 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 March 29, 2016. Write “In the Matter of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0198” 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 “In the Matter of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0198” 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 Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (“Hikma”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Hikma's acquisition of Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane, Inc. (jointly, “Roxane”) from Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation (“BI”). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, Hikma must divest all of its rights and assets related to 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets and to generic lithium carbonate capsules to Renaissance Acquisition Holdings LLC (“Renaissance”), and to divest all marketing rights and ownership interests in generic flecainide tablets to Unimark Remedies Ltd (“Unimark”).
The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again evaluate the proposed Consent Agreement, along with the comments received, to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw from the proposed consent Agreement or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).
Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated July 28, 2015, Hikma proposed to acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of Roxane for approximately $2.65 billion. On February 10, 2016, the purchase price was reduced to approximately $2 billion (the “Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission alleges in its Complaint 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 lessening current competition in the markets for 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets and in the generic lithium carbonate capsules market, and future competition in the market for generic flecainide tablets in the United States. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the competition that the Proposed Acquisition would otherwise eliminate.
The Proposed Acquisition would reduce the number of current suppliers in the markets for 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets and for generic lithium carbonate capsules, and reduce the number of future suppliers in the market for generic flecainide tablets.
Prednisone is a corticosteroid that prevents the release of substances in the body that cause inflammation. It is used to treat arthritis, allergies, and other conditions. Prednisone is also prescribed as an immunosuppressant medication. Generic prednisone is available in six tablet strengths: 1 mg, 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg. Hikma and Roxane both market three of the six tablet strengths: 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg. In addition to Hikma and Roxane, Endo International plc, Allergan, Inc., and Jubilant Cadista Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also offer 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets in the United States.
Lithium carbonate capsules are prescribed for the treatment of manic episodes of bipolar disorder and for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Lithium therapy reduces the frequency of manic episodes and diminishes the intensity of episodes when they occur. In addition to Hikma and Roxane, two other firms currently supply generic lithium carbonate capsules in the United States: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Flecainide acetate is an antiarrhythmic drug used to prevent and treat abnormally fast heart rhythms. Four firms currently market generic flecainide tablets: Roxane, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Citron Pharma. Hikma owns the U.S. marketing rights to a generic flecainide in development at Unimark Remedies Ltd. Hikma is one of few suppliers that can enter the United States market in the near future.
Entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. The combination of drug development times and regulatory requirements, including approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), is costly and lengthy.
The Proposed Acquisition likely would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating current competition between Hikma and Roxane in the markets for 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets and in the generic lithium carbonate capsule market. Market participants characterize both generic prednisone tablets and generic lithium carbonate capsules as commodity products, and prices are typically inversely correlated with the number of competitors in each market. As the number of suppliers offering a therapeutically equivalent drug increases, the price for that drug generally decreases due to the direct competition between the existing suppliers and each additional supplier. The Proposed Acquisition would combine two of five companies offering the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg strengths of generic prednisone tablets, and two of four firms offering generic lithium carbonate capsules, likely leading consumers to pay higher prices.
In addition, the Proposed Acquisition likely would harm consumers by eliminating future generic competition that would otherwise have occurred in the generic flecainide market if Hikma and Roxane remained independent. The Proposed Acquisition would likely harm competition by eliminating an additional independent entrant in the market for generic flecainide. Customers view the price of this pharmaceutical product as less competitive than it would be in a market with more participants, including Hikma. Thus, absent a remedy, the Proposed Acquisition would likely cause U.S. consumers to pay significantly higher prices for generic flecainide tablets.
The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the competitive concerns raised by the acquisition by requiring Hikma to divest all its rights and assets relating to 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone and those relating to generic lithium carbonate capsules to Renaissance. Established in 2010 and based in Newtown, Pennsylvania, Renaissance is a privately held pharmaceutical company that manufactures and markets both generic and branded prescription drugs in the United States. In addition, the proposed Consent Agreement requires Hikma to return its rights to market generic flecainide tablets in the United States to Unimark, along with its equity interest in Unimark.
The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the proposed acquisition. If the Commission determines that Renaissance is not an acceptable acquirer, or that the manner
The proposed Consent Agreement and Order contain several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. The proposed Order requires that Hikma supply Renaissance with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg generic prednisone tablets and with generic lithium carbonate capsules for eighteen months while Hikma transfers the manufacturing technology to Renaissance's facility. The proposed Order also requires Hikma to provide a back-up supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient for generic prednisone tablets should the need for it arise. To ensure the success of these divestitures, the proposed Order requires Hikma to provide transitional services to assist Renaissance in establishing its manufacturing capabilities and securing all of the necessary FDA approvals. The transitional services include technical assistance to manufacture the product in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Hikma, and advice and training from knowledgeable employees of the parties. In addition, to ensure that Hikma complies with the terms of the Consent Agreement, the Commission has appointed Owen Richards of Quantic Regulatory Services, LLC as the Interim Monitor.
To remedy competitive concerns raised by the acquisition in the market for generic flecainide tablets, the proposed Order requires Hikma to divest its approximately 23% ownership interest in Unimark and to return to Unimark all rights it has to commercialize generic flecainide tablets in the United States. Unimark has selected another firm, Bion Pharma, of Princeton, New Jersey, to market generic flecainide tablets in the United States upon the product's approval by the FDA.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning quality assurance requirements.
Submit comments on or before May 6, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at 202-501-1448 or email
Supplies and services acquired under Government contracts must conform to the contract's quality and quantity requirements. FAR Part 46 prescribes inspection, acceptance, warranty, and other measures associated with quality requirements. Standard clauses related to inspection require the contractor to provide and maintain an inspection system that is acceptable to the Government; gives the Government the right to make inspections and test while work is in process; and requires the contractor to keep complete, and make available to the Government, records of its inspection work.
Respondents: 138,292.
Responses Per Respondent: 1.03226.
Total Responses: 142,753.
Hours Per Response: .83511.
Total Burden hours: 119,214.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension to a previously approved information collection requirement concerning prompt payment.
Submit comments on or before May 6, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0102, Prompt Payment, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-969-7226 or email
Part 32 of the FAR and the clause at FAR 52.232-5, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts, require that contractors under fixed-price construction contracts certify, for every progress payment request, that payments to subcontractors/suppliers have been made from previous payments received under the contract and timely payments will be made from the proceeds of the payment covered by the certification, and that this payment request does not include any amount which the contractor intends to withhold from a subcontractor/supplier. Part 32 of the FAR and the clause at 52.232-27, Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts, further require that contractors on construction contracts:
(a) Notify subcontractors/suppliers of any amounts to be withheld and furnish a copy of the notification to the contracting officer;
(b) Pay interest to subcontractors/suppliers if payment is not made by 7 days after receipt of payment from the Government, or within 7 days after correction of previously identified deficiencies;
(c) Pay interest to the Government if amounts are withheld from subcontractors/suppliers after the Government has paid the contractor the amounts subsequently withheld, or if the Government has inadvertently paid the contractor for nonconforming performance; and
(d) Include a payment clause in each subcontract which obligates the contractor to pay the subcontractor for satisfactory performance under its subcontract no later than seven days after such amounts are paid to the contractor, include an interest penalty clause which obligates the contractor to pay the subcontractor an interest penalty if payments are not made in a timely manner, and include a clause requiring each subcontractor to include these clauses in each of its subcontractors and to require each of its subcontractors to include similar clauses in their subcontracts.
These requirements are imposed by Public Law 100-496, the Prompt Payment Act Amendments of 1988.
Contracting officers will be notified if the contractor withholds amounts from subcontractors/suppliers after the Government has already paid the contractor the amounts withheld. The contracting officer must then charge the contractor interest on the amounts withheld from subcontractors/suppliers. Federal agencies could not comply with the requirements of the law if this information were not collected.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Price Redetermination. A notice was published in the
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0071, Price Redetermination”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0071, Price Redetermination” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-1448 or email
FAR 16.205, Fixed-price contracts with prospective price redetermination, provides for firm fixed prices for an initial period of the contract with prospective redetermination at stated times during performance. FAR 16.206, Fixed price contracts with retroactive price redetermination, provides for a fixed ceiling price and retroactive price redetermination within the ceiling after completion of the contract. In order for the amounts of price adjustments to be determined, the firms performing under these contracts must provide information to the Government regarding their expenditures and anticipated costs.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0071, Price Redetermination, in all correspondence.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on An Assessment of the State Public Health Actions (“1305”) Program, a study to explore state-level partnerships and synergy among state health departments funded through the State Public Health Actions 1305 cooperative agreement.
Written comments must be received on or before May 2, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0024 by any of the following methods:
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Assessment of the State Public Health Actions (“1305”) Program—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Chronic diseases and conditions—such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and obesity—are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, and are major drivers of sickness, disability, and high health care costs (CDC, 2016). Having multiple chronic conditions further increases the risk for these negative health outcomes, while also increasing risk for poor day-to-day functioning. Chronic diseases, as well as multiple chronic diseases, are associated with significant health care costs. In 2010, 86% of all health care spending was attributed to individuals with at least one chronic medical condition, and 71% was associated with care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions (Gerteis et al., 2014).
To address these challenges, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) provides funding for cross-cutting chronic disease programs within state and local health agencies to implement public health programs; conduct public health surveillance; translate research; communicate health prevention messages; and develop and implement tools and resources for state- and local-level stakeholders. In 2013, the NCCDPHP developed a new program funding opportunity to support states in the design and implementation of strategies to reduce complications from multiple chronic diseases and associated risk factors. The funding opportunity was announced as “
State Public Health Actions 1305 addresses six key public health priorities: (1) Uncontrolled hypertension, (2) prevention and control of diabetes, (3) incidence of obesity, (4) increased physical activity and healthy eating by children and adults, (5) increased breastfeeding, and (6) improved management of chronic conditions among students. Strategies implemented under State Public Health Actions 1305 fall into one or more of four chronic disease domains, including (1) Epidemiology and Surveillance, (2) Environmental Approaches to promote health and support and reinforce healthful behaviors, (3) Health Systems Interventions to improve the effective delivery and use of clinical and other preventive services, and (4) Community-Clinical Linkages to support cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention and control efforts, and the management of chronic diseases.
Through this cooperative agreement, CDC currently provides over $100 million to state health departments in all 50 United States and the District of Columbia. Due to the funding, complexity, coordination, and collaboration needed to implement State Public Health Actions 1305, there are a number of semi-annual and annual reporting requirements related to categorical spending, chronic disease outcomes, efficiencies, and accomplishments. These routine reporting requirements allow CDC to monitor awardee progress towards programmatic goals, but do not collect specific information about the processes that support program implementation plans.
The overall evaluation of State Public Health Actions 1305 examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the program to provide accountability, improve programs, expand practice-based evidence, and demonstrate health outcomes. An important component of assessing efficiency and effectiveness of the program is examining synergy. Synergy occurs when collaboration, coordination, alignment, and a combination of inputs and activities (
The assessment is guided by three process-related research questions and multiple indicators designed to examine changes in processes, organizational structure, and capacity. It will also examine states' ability to implement a coordinated approach across the different chronic disease areas and the four domains; challenges and benefits; and measurable positive outcomes. The research questions include: (1) What changes did States make to create greater synergy?, (2) To what extent were redundancies reduced or eliminated at the State level?, and (3) How has coordination with critical partners changed since the implementation of State Public Health Actions 1305?
CDC plans to administer a web-based survey to health departments receiving funding through the State Public Health Actions 1305 cooperative agreement, including 50 states and the District of Columbia. CDC plans to administer the survey in 2016 (program year 4) and 2018 (program year 5) to explore changes in partnerships and synergy throughout the 5-year cooperative agreement. Surveys will be administered to health department staff directly involved in planning and/or implementation of the State Public Health Actions 1305 program, including principal investigators, chronic disease directors, program evaluators, epidemiologists, and program staff with subject matter expertise in one or more of the four categorical areas. CDC will recruit approximately 8 individuals from each funded program for a total of approximately 408 respondents.
CDC will use survey findings to (1) inform future CDC technical assistance provision to State Public Health Actions 1305 funded programs, and (2) inform future cross-cutting, coordinated funding models. In addition, findings will complement existing routine reporting by gathering information about the specific processes that support program implementation plans. Findings will be disseminated via grantee webinars, grantee annual meetings, reports to CDC leadership, and U.S. Congressional reports.
OMB approval is requested for 2 years. Participation is voluntary and respondents will not receive incentives for participation. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the information collection request Qualitative Information Collection on Emerging Diseases among the Foreign-born in the US that enables CDC improve the planning and implementation of disease prevention and control strategies targeting communicable diseases and other emerging health issues among high-risk foreign-born communities in specific and limited geographic areas in the United States where high numbers of those populations live.
Written comments must be received on or before May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0023 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each
Qualitative Information Collection on Emerging Diseases among the Foreign-born in the U.S. (0920-0987 expires 09/30/2016)—Extension—Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), requests approval for an extension of the current generic information collection Qualitative Information Collection on Emerging Diseases among the Foreign-born in the U.S.
This qualitative data collection is needed by DGMQ because foreign-born individuals are considered hard-to-reach populations and are often missed by routine information collection systems in the United States. As a consequence, limited information is available about the health status, knowledge, attitudes, health beliefs and practices related to communicable diseases and other emerging health issues (
The purpose of the extension is to continue efforts to improve the agency's understanding of the health status, risk factors for disease, and other health outcomes among foreign-born individuals in the United States. Numerous types of data will be collected under the auspices of this generic information collection. These include, but are not limited to, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, practices, behaviors, skills, self-efficacy, and health information needs and sources.
Under the terms of this generic, CDC will employ focus groups and key informant interviews to collect information. Depending on the specific purpose, the information collection may be conducted either in-person, by telephone, on paper, or online. For each generic information collection, CDC will submit to OMB the project summary and information collection tools.
CDC requests a total of 1,025 respondents and 825 burden hours annually. The respondents to these information collections are foreign born individuals in the United States. There is no cost to respondents other than the time required to provide the information requested.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “DELTA FOCUS Program Evaluation.” CDC will use the information collected to improve the national DELTA FOCUS program, and to develop strategy interactions to help the DELTA FOCUS program meet the requirements of the Funding Opportunity Announcement.
Written comments must be received on or before May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0025 by any of the following methods:
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
DELTA FOCUS Program Evaluation—Reinstatement with change—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans and results in serious consequences for victims, families, and communities. IPV occurs between two people in a close relationship. The term “intimate partner” describes physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. IPV can impact health in many ways, including long-term health problems, emotional impacts, and links to negative health behaviors. IPV exists along a continuum from a single episode of violence to ongoing battering; many victims do not report IPV to police, friends, or family.
The purpose of the DELTA FOCUS (Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States) program is to promote the prevention of IPV through the implementation and evaluation of strategies that create a foundation for the development of practice-based evidence. By emphasizing primary prevention, this program will support comprehensive and coordinated approaches to IPV prevention. Each State Domestic Violence Coalition (SDVC) is required to identify and fund one to two well-organized, broad-based, active local coalitions (referred to as coordinated community responses or CCRs) that are already engaging in, or are at capacity to engage in, IPV primary prevention strategies affecting the structural determinants of health at the societal and/or community levels of the social ecological model. SDVCs must facilitate and support local-level implementation and hire empowerment evaluators to support the evaluation of IPV prevention strategies by the CCRs. SDVCs must also implement and with their empowerment evaluators, evaluate state-level IPV prevention strategies.
CDC seeks a one-year OMB approval to collect information electronically from awardees, their CCRs and their empowerment evaluators. Information will be collected using the DELTA FOCUS Program Evaluation Survey (referred to as DF Survey). The DF
Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Improving Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Prevention and Practice through Practice and Implementation Centers and National Partnerships—New—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities seeks to collect training evaluation data from healthcare practitioners and staff in health systems where FASD-related practice and systems changes are implemented, and from grantees of Practice and Implementation Centers and national partner organizations related to prevention, identification, and treatment of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs).
Prenatal exposure to alcohol is a leading preventable cause of birth defects and developmental disabilities. The term “fetal alcohol spectrum disorders” describes the full continuum of effects that can occur in an individual exposed to alcohol in utero. These effects include physical, mental, behavioral, and learning disabilities. All of these have lifelong implications.
The purpose of this program is to expand previous efforts from FASD training programs and shift the perspective from individual training for practicing healthcare professionals to one that capitalizes on prevention opportunities and the ability to impact health care practice at the systems level.
Since 2002, CDC funded FASD Regional Training Centers (RTCs) to provide education and training to healthcare professionals and students about FASD prevention, identification, and treatment. In July 2013, CDC convened an expert review panel to evaluate the effectiveness of the RTC program overall and to make recommendations about the program.
The panel highlighted several accomplishments of the RTCs and proposed several changes for future programming: (1) The panel identified a need for more comprehensive coverage nationally with discipline-specific trainings, increased use of technology, greater collaboration with medical societies, and stronger linkages with national partner organizations to increase the reach of training opportunities, and (2) The panel suggested that the training centers focus on demonstrable practice change and
Based on the recommendations of the expert review panel, CDC is placing increased focus on prevention, demonstrating practice change, achieving national coverage, and strengthening partnerships between FASD Practice and Implementation Centers, or PICs (the newly redesigned RTCs), and medical societies and national partner organizations. The National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (NOFAS) also participates in this project as a resource to the PICS and national partners. The PICs and national partners are asked to closely collaborate in discipline-specific workgroups (DSWs) and identify strategies that will increase the reach of the program on a national level. While a major focus of the grantees' work will be national, regional approaches will be used to develop new content and “test out” feasibility and acceptability of materials, especially among healthcare providers and medical societies. In addition, CDC is placing a stronger emphasis on evaluation, with both individual DSW/NOFAS evaluations and a cross-site evaluation.
CDC requests OMB approval to collect program evaluation information from (1) healthcare practitioners from disciplines targeted by each DSW, including training participants, (2) health system staff, and (3) cooperative agreement grantees over a three-year period.
• Healthcare practitioners will complete surveys to provide information on whether project trainings impacted their knowledge and practice behavior regarding FASD identification, prevention, and treatment. The information will be used to improve future trainings and assess whether knowledge and practice changes occurred. Some participants will also complete qualitative key informant interviews to gain additional information on practice change.
• Health system employees will be interviewed or complete surveys as part of projects to assess healthcare systems change, including high impact evaluation studies and DSW systems change projects. The high impact evaluation studies will be primarily qualitative assessments of two to three specific grantee efforts that seem likely to result in achievement of program objectives. The DSW systems change projects will employ online surveys to assess systems change in selected health systems across the U.S.
• Grantees will complete program evaluation forms to track perceptions of DSW collaboration and perceptions of key successes and challenges encountered by the DSW.
It is estimated that 29,573 respondents will participate in the evaluation each year, for a total estimated burden of 3790 hours annually. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Administration for Community Living (ACL), HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL), Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of
Kristie Kulinski (
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
OMB approval of the existing set of CDSME data collection tools (OMB Control Number, 0985-0036) expires on 07/31/2016. This data collection continues to be necessary for monitoring program operations and outcomes. ACL proposes to use revised versions of the following tools: (1) Semi-annual progress reports to monitor grantee progress; (2) an Organization Data form to record location of sites where programs are held which will allow mapping of the delivery infrastructure; and (3) a set of tools used to collect information at each program completed by the program leaders/delivery personnel (Program Information Cover Sheet and Attendance Log) and a Participant Information Survey completed by each participant to document their demographic and health characteristics. ACL is not requesting renewal of one other data collection tool, the Annual Integrated Services Delivery System Assessment Tool. ACL proposes to gather data using an existing online data entry system for the program and participant survey data. The current proposed Data Collection Tools can be found at ACL's Web site at:
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by May 6, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202-395-5806 or by email to
Phillip McKoy at 202-795-7397 or email:
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Grantees are required by Congress to provide information for use in program monitoring and for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. This information collection reports the number of active volunteers, issues and inquiries received, other SMP program outreach activities, and the number of Medicare dollars recovered, among other SMP performance outcomes. This information is used as the primary method for monitoring the SMP Projects.
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
The public workshop will be held on May 19, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Individuals who wish to attend the workshop must register by April 19, 2016. The deadline for submitting either electronic or written comments on this workshop is June 20, 2016. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop 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.”
• 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
Xinyuan Zhang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4612, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7971, email:
In July 2012, Congress passed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) (Title III of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144)). GDUFA is designed to enhance public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and reduce costs to industry. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the GDUFA commitment letter to work with industry and interested stakeholders on identifying regulatory science research priorities specific to generic drugs for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA. The commitment letter outlines FDA's performance goals and procedures under the GDUFA program for the years 2012 to 2017. The commitment letter can be found at
In the Regulatory Science section of the GDUFA Commitment Letter, FDA outlined its plans to advance regulatory science, including with respect to modeling and simulation. To enhance communication of recent advances in modeling and simulation, including those supported by GDUFA funds, FDA plans to hold a public workshop on
The purpose of the workshop is to:
1. Share FDA's current experiences on the application of mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation in regulatory activities;
2. Discuss the current and future utility of mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation in development of bioequivalent oral drug products and regulatory reviews; and
3. Obtain input from the public on when, where, and how mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation should be applied in development of bioequivalent oral drug products and review of bioequivalence.
The scope of the workshop covers the current status of mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation from academia, industry, and regulatory perspectives.
The majority of drug products on the market are administered orally. Predicting oral bioavailability is always of great interest for pharmaceutical scientists. It has been a long journey for scientists to develop mechanistic absorption models for oral bioavailability prediction to reduce drug development time and cost, and to inform regulatory decisions. From simpler models to more complex ones, mechanism-based absorption models have been advanced substantially and their applications have been increasingly found in scientific literature and regulatory reports.
The high value of leveraging mechanistic absorption models in the development and evaluation of bioequivalent drug products can be attributed to their incorporation of formulation factors. The focus of this public workshop is on the application of mechanistic absorption modeling and simulation for development of bioequivalent oral drug products and evaluation of bioequivalence, including discussing the areas in which mechanistic oral absorption models can contribute significantly, how the mechanistic absorption modeling and simulation should be conducted and evaluated, and inherent scientific challenges.
Public input will improve FDA's current understanding of using mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation in bioequivalence evaluation. The knowledge gained from, and consensus reached, through this workshop will be summarized and disseminated to the scientific community by publication(s).
FDA seeks input from the public on when, where, and how to utilize mechanism-based absorption modeling and simulation in the context of development of bioequivalent oral drug products and regulatory evaluation of bioequivalence. Specific topics to be addressed include:
1. Identifying the areas in which mechanistic oral absorption models can contribute significantly during development of bioequivalent oral drug products and regulatory evaluation of bioequivalence;
2. How mechanistic absorption modeling and simulation should be conducted and evaluated; and
3. The scientific challenges in mechanistic oral absorption and simulation.
There is no registration fee for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided on a space available basis beginning at 8 a.m.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Xinyuan Zhang (see
The workshop agenda and other background materials will be available approximately 2 weeks before the workshop at
In this document, FDA has included specific issues that will be addressed by the panel. If you wish to address one or more of these issues, please submit your comments via the Docket or speak during the public comments session at the workshop. If you wish to speak during the public comments session at the workshop, please indicate it at the time you register so that FDA can consider that in planning the agenda. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Clinical Considerations for Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for Neurological Devices Targeting Disease Progression and Clinical Outcomes.” The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) developed this draft guidance to assist sponsors who intend to submit an IDE to the FDA to conduct clinical trials on medical devices targeting neurological disease progression and clinically meaningful patient centered outcomes. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 June 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 guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Carlos Peña, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2680, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6610.
FDA believes that neurological devices intended to slow disease progression and improve clinical outcomes that are meaningful may represent a revolutionary option for patients. FDA developed this draft guidance to assist sponsors who intend to submit an IDE to the FDA to conduct clinical trials on medical devices targeting neurological disease progression and clinically meaningful patient centered outcomes. The draft guidance is intended to aid industry and FDA staff in considering the benefits and risks of medical devices that target either the cause or progression of the neurological disorder or condition such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Clinical Considerations for Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for Neurological Devices Targeting Disease Progression and Clinical Outcomes.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
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 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; and the collections of information in the guidance document entitled “Request for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-submission Program and Meetings With Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Donor Screening Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Zika Virus by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility (DE) determinations for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) with recommendations for screening donors for evidence of, and risk factors for, infection with Zika virus (ZIKV). The guidance identifies ZIKV as a relevant communicable disease agent or disease (RCDAD) and adds to recommendations contained in the guidance entitled “Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated August 2007.
The Agency is soliciting public comment, but is implementing this guidance immediately because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate. Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jonathan McKnight, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Donor Screening Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Zika Virus by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides establishments that make DE determinations for donors of HCT/Ps with recommendations for screening donors for evidence of, and risk factors for, infection with ZIKV. The guidance identifies ZIKV as a RCDAD as defined in 21 CFR part 1271. The guidance adds to recommendations contained in the guidance entitled “Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated August 2007.
ZIKV is an arbovirus from the Flaviviridae family, genus
The most common ZIKV disease symptoms include fever, arthralgia, maculopapular rash, and conjunctivitis. Neurological manifestations and congenital anomalies may also be associated with ZIKV disease outbreaks. For example, possible association of ZIKV infection with Guillain-Barré syndrome cases has been reported during outbreaks in French Polynesia and Brazil. There has also been a marked increase in the reported incidence of microcephaly in regions of Brazil most affected by the ZIKV epidemic, though a direct connection has yet to be confirmed.
ZIKV reached the Americas in early 2015 with local transmission first reported in Brazil. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of February 23, 2016, there are 34 countries and territories worldwide with active local transmission of the virus. To date, local mosquito-borne transmission of ZIKV has not been reported in the continental United States, but at least 82 cases have been reported in travelers returning to the United States from areas with local transmission.
In general, an area is considered to have active transmission of ZIKV when locally transmitted, mosquito-borne ZIKV has been reported. For the purpose of the guidance, an area with “active ZIKV transmission” is an area included on the CDC Web site listing of countries and U.S. States and territories with local vector-borne (
As noted above, FDA has identified that ZIKV is an RCDAD as defined in § 1271.3(r)(2). Therefore, review of relevant medical records, as defined in § 1271.3(s), must indicate that a potential donor of HCT/Ps is free from risk factors for, or clinical evidence of, ZIKV infection for the purpose of determining donor eligibility. The recommendations in the guidance are intended to reduce the risk of transmission of ZIKV by HCT/Ps. Living donors of HCT/Ps should be considered ineligible if they have any of the following risk factors: (1) Medical diagnosis of ZIKV infection in the past 6 months; (2) residence in, or travel to, an area with active ZIKV transmission within the past 6 months; or (3) sex within the past 6 months with a male who has either of the risk factors identified in items 1 or 2, above. Additionally, donors of umbilical cord, placenta, or other gestational tissues should be considered ineligible if the birth mother who seeks to donate gestational tissues has any of the following risk factors: (4) Medical diagnosis of ZIKV infection at any point during that pregnancy; (5) residence in, or travel to, an area with active ZIKV transmission at any point during that pregnancy; or (6) sex at any point during that pregnancy with a male who has either of the risk factors listed in items 1 or 2 above. Additionally, a non-heart beating (cadaveric) donor should be considered ineligible if the donor had a medical diagnosis of ZIKV infection in the past 6 months.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). FDA is issuing this guidance for immediate implementation in accordance with 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2) without initially seeking prior comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate. The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Donor Screening Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Zika Virus by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This 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 part 1271 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0543.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Medical Devices and Clinical Trial Design for the Treatment or Improvement in the Appearance of Fungally-Infected Nails.” This guidance is intended to provide recommendations regarding clinical trial design for medical devices intended either to provide improvement in the appearance of nails affected by onychomycosis or to treat onychomycosis (fungal nail infection).
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
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 guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Shlomit Halachmi, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G439, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6338.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and FDA staff
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on medical devices and clinical trial design for the treatment or improvement in the appearance of fungally-infected nails. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the 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 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 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E are approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H are approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information regarding adverse events have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0471; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The labeling recommendations of this guidance are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Rather, the recommended labeling is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Environmental Assessment: Questions and Answers Regarding Drugs With Estrogenic, Androgenic, or Thyroid Activity.” It is intended to help sponsors of such drugs determine whether they should submit environmental assessments (EA) for drug applications and certain supplements, and to clarify what information such sponsors should include if they submit a claim of categorical exclusion instead of an EA.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
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
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Raanan A. Bloom, Environmental Assessment Team, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2185,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Environmental Assessment: Questions and Answers Regarding Drugs with Estrogenic, Androgenic, or Thyroid Activity.” This guidance finalizes the draft of the same name that published on April 29, 2015. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions and to ensure that the interested and affected public is informed of the environmental analyses. FDA regulations at 21 CFR part 25 specify that EAs must be submitted as part of certain new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biologic license applications (BLAs), supplements to such applications, and investigational new drug applications (INDs), and for various other actions, unless the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. Failure to submit either an EA or a claim of categorical exclusion is sufficient grounds for FDA to refuse to file or approve an application (21 CFR 25.15(a), 314.101(d)(4) and 601.2(a) and (c)).
Categorical exclusions for actions related to human drugs and biologics are listed at 21 CFR 25.31. This guidance focuses on the categorical exclusion for actions on NDAs and NDA supplements that would increase the use of an active moiety, but the estimated concentration of the substance at the point of entry into the aquatic environment would be below 1 part per billion (1 ppb) (21 CFR 25.31(b)). Although an action that qualifies for this exclusion ordinarily does not require an EA, FDA will require “at least an EA” if “extraordinary circumstances” indicate that the specific proposed action (
FDA has, on a case-by-case basis, requested additional information from sponsors of NDAs and NDA supplements for drugs with E, A, or T activity to help it determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. However, late cycle requests for additional environmental information have the potential to delay approval of applications. Accordingly, this guidance is intended to clarify that sponsors of drugs with potential E, A, or T activity should consult with the Agency early in product development concerning the information FDA may need to determine whether an EA will be required or whether a claim of categorical exclusion will be acceptable, and what information should be included in the EA or claim of categorical exclusion.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Environmental Assessment: Questions and Answers Regarding Drugs With Estrogenic, Androgenic, or Thyroid Activity. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that 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 25 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0322 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the extension of temporary permits issued to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken of the Sea International; and StarKist Seafood Company (the applicants) to market test products (designated as “canned tuna”) that deviate from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna. The extension allows the applicants to continue to measure consumer acceptance of the products and assess the commercial feasibility of the products, in support of a petition to amend the standard of identity for canned tuna. We also invite other interested parties to participate in the market test.
The new expiration date of the permit will be either the effective date of a final rule amending the standard of identity for canned tuna that may result from the petition or 30 days after denial of the petition.
Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
In accordance with 21 CFR 130.17, we issued temporary permits to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, 9655 Granite Ridge Dr., San Diego, CA 92123; Chicken of the Sea International, 9330 Scranton Rd. Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92121; and StarKist Seafood Company, 225 North Shore Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15212, to market test products identified as “canned tuna” that deviate from the requirements of the standard of identity for canned tuna in 21 CFR 161.190 (79 FR 35362, June 20, 2014). We issued the permits to facilitate market testing of products that deviate from the requirements of the standard of identity for canned tuna issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341). The permit covers limited interstate marketing tests of products identified as “canned tuna.” These test products deviate from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna (§ 161.190) in that they are labeled without the statement “Below Standard in Fill” as required in § 161.190(c)(4) and § 130.14(b). The test products meet all the requirements of the standard with the exception of this deviation.
On September 3, 2015, the applicants asked us to extend the temporary permit so they could have more time to market test the canned tuna products and gain additional consumer acceptance in support of the petition to amend the standard for canned tuna. We find that it is in the interest of consumers to extend the permit for the market testing of canned tuna to gain additional information on consumer expectations and acceptance. Therefore, under § 130.17(i), we are extending the temporary permits granted to Bumble Bee Foods, LLC (141,000,000 pounds (lbs) (63,800,905 kilograms (kgs))); Chicken of the Sea International (77,500,000 lbs (35,067,873 kgs)); and StarKist Seafood Company (182,500,000 lbs (82,579,185 kgs)) to provide continued market testing of the specified amounts of product for each applicant on an annual basis. The test products will bear the name “canned tuna.” The new expiration date of the permit will be either the effective date of a final rule amending the standard of identity for canned tuna that may result from the petition or 30 days after denial of the petition. All other conditions and terms of this permit remain the same.
In addition, we invite interested persons to participate in the market test under the conditions of the permit, except for the designated area of distribution. Any person who wishes to participate in the extended market test must notify, in writing, the Supervisor, Product Evaluation Labeling Team, Food Labeling and Standards Staff, Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. The notification must describe the test products and the area of distribution, specify and justify the amount requested, and include the labeling that will be used for the test product (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “A Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter II. Identity Statement.” This guidance is part of a longer guidance entitled “A Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide,” which covers the most frequently raised questions about the labeling of dietary supplements using a question and answer format and is intended to help ensure that the dietary supplements sold in the United States are properly labeled. We are revising the guidance to correct an inaccurate statement.
Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.
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
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Dietary Supplement Programs, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Cara Welch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2375.
We are announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “A Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter II. Identity Statement.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (21 CFR 10.115). As with all FDA guidance, the guidance represents our current thinking on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
In April 2005, we issued a guidance for industry entitled “A Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide.” The guidance covers the most frequently raised questions about the labeling of dietary supplements using a question and answer format and is intended to help ensure that the dietary supplements sold in the United States are properly labeled. We recently were made aware that the guidance was inaccurate in one detail. Specifically, in Chapter II, entitled “Identity Statement,” question 3 asked “Can the term ‘dietary supplement’ by itself be considered the statement of identity?” The response to the question said that it could not, but this response was not consistent with section 403(s)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(s)(2)(B)) and our regulations at 21 CFR 101.3(g). Thus, we are revising the guidance to state that the term “dietary supplement” may be used as the entire statement of identity for a dietary supplement and to explain the basis for that conclusion. We are also revising questions 1, 2, and 3 for clarity and consistency with 21 CFR 101.3(g) and FDA's guidance on statements of identity for conventional foods in “A Food Labeling Guide: Guidance for Industry” (available at
This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that such prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(2)). The Agency made this determination because this guidance's primary revision of the existing guidance merely corrects an inaccurate statement to make the guidance consistent with the FD&C Act and FDA's regulations, and it would be inappropriate to solicit comment on whether or not a guidance should be consistent with requirements set forth in the statute and regulations. The guidance also contains other clarifying edits to existing guidance that do not set forth initial or changed interpretations of statutory or regulatory requirements. Although this guidance document is being implemented immediately, it remains subject to comment in accordance with the Agency's GGP regulation (§ 10.115(g)).
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at 301-796-5966 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email
Submit your comments to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
•
•
•
HRSA collects and evaluates network outcome measures. HRSA requires that HCCNs report such measures to HRSA in annual work plan updates as part of their annual, non-competing continuation progress reports through an electronic reporting system. The work plan includes information on grantees' plans and progress on the following:
• Adoption and Implementation of HIT (including EHR);
• Attainment of Meaningful Use Requirements; and
• Improvement of quality measures (
The annual, non-competing continuation progress reports describe each grantee's progress in achieving key activity goals such as quality improvement, data access and exchange, efficiency and effectiveness of network services, and the ability to track and monitor patient outcomes, as well as emerging needs, challenges and barriers encountered customer satisfaction, and plans to meet goals for the next year. Grantees submit their work plan updates and annual, non-competing continuation progress reports each fiscal year of the grant; the submission and subsequent HRSA approval of each report triggers the budget period renewal and release of each subsequent year of funding.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice amends
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of May 16, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of June 2, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 2, 2016.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1602, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of May 2, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of June 16, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council). The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, the States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.
The meeting will be held at the South Penthouse Room, Main Interior Building, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone: (703) 358-2639; or email:
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council will hold a meeting.
Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:
1. Benefit wildlife resources;
2. Encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, the states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and
3. Benefit recreational hunting.
The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Director, National Park Service (NPS); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:
1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;
2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Wildlife Restoration Program;
3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;
4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;
5. Fostering communication and coordination among State, tribal, and Federal governments; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;
6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;
7. Providing recommendations to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and
8. When requested by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairperson, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.
Background information on the Council is available at
The Council will convene to consider issues including:
1. Wildlife habitat and health;
2. Funding for public lands and wildlife management;
3. Enhancing and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities; and
4. Other Council business..
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
To attend this meeting, register by close of business on the dates listed in “Public Input” under
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Coordinator (see
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft long-range transportation plan (LRTP) for public review and comment. The draft LRTP outlines a strategy for improving and maintaining transportation assets that provide access to Service-managed lands in the Northeast Region (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia) over the next 20 years.
To ensure our consideration of your written comments, please send them no later than April 6, 2016.
Send your comments or requests for copies of the draft LRTP for Service lands in the Northeast Region by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Carl Melberg, Acting Regional Transportation Program Coordinator, phone: 413-253-8586; facsimile: 413-253-8468; or electronic mail:
With this notice, we make the draft LRTP for the Northeast Region of the Service available for public review and comment. When finalized, the LRTP will apply to Service-managed lands in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) requires all Federal land management agencies to conduct long-range transportation planning in a manner that is consistent with metropolitan planning organization and state Department of Transportation planning. This LRTP was initiated within the Service to achieve the following:
• Establish a defensible structure for sound transportation planning and decision-making.
• Establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in the Service's Northeast Region.
• Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to improve the Service's transportation infrastructure.
• Integrate transportation planning and funding for wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries into existing and future Service management plans and strategies (
• Increase awareness of Alternative Transportation Systems and associated benefits.
• Develop best management practices for transportation improvements on Service lands.
• Serve as a pilot project for the implementation of a Region-level transportation planning process within the Service.
Through a collaborative effort, the Service's National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and Fish and Aquatic Conservation program, in cooperation with the Division of Refuge Field Support within the Service's Northeast Region, have contributed to defining the mission, goals, and objectives presented in this document. The resulting mission, goals, and objectives are intended to provide a systematic approach to guide the process for evaluating and selecting transportation improvement for the Service lands in the Northeast Region. These guiding principles have shaped the development, conclusions, and recommendations of this LRTP.
To support the Service's mission by connecting people to fish, wildlife, and their habitats through strategic implementation of transportation programs.
This LRTP has six categories of goals: Coordinated Opportunities; Asset Management; Safety; Environmental; Access, Mobility, and Connectivity; and Visitor Experience. Under each goal, we present distinct objectives that move us to the goal.
1. Coordinated Opportunities: The program will seek joint transportation opportunities that support the Service mission, maximize the utility of Service resources, and provide mutual benefits to the Service and external partners.
Objectives:
• Identify and increase key internal and external partnerships at the national, regional, and unit levels.
• Maximize leveraged opportunities by identifying and pursuing funding for projects of mutual interest and benefit.
• Develop best practices for external engagement that illustrates success in forming and nurturing coalitions and partnerships that support the Service's mission.
• Coordinate within Service programs, including the Refuge System, Ecological Services, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, hatcheries, and Migratory Birds during the development of regional long-range and project-level plans.
2. Asset Management: The program will operate and maintain a functional, financially sustainable, and resilient transportation network to satisfy current and future land management needs in the face of a changing climate.
Objectives:
• Use asset management principles to maintain important infrastructure at an appropriate condition level.
• Prioritize work programs through the project selection process detailed in this plan or an adaptation thereof.
• Evaluate life-cycle costs when considering new assets to determine long-term financial sustainability.
• Consider the impacts of increased climate variability in the planning and management of transportation assets.
3. Safety: The program's network will provide a superior level of safety for all users and all modes of transportation to and within Service lands.
Objectives:
• Identify safety issue “hot spots” within the Service's transportation system with the Safety Analysis Toolkit.
• Implement appropriate safety countermeasures to resolve safety issues and reduce the frequency and severity of crashes (also with the Safety Analysis Toolkit).
• Address wildlife-vehicle collisions with design solutions (Environmental Enhancements).
• Use cooperation and communication among the 4E's of safety, including engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services.
4. Environmental: Transportation infrastructure will be landscape appropriate and play a key role in the improvement of environmental conditions in and around Service lands.
Objectives:
• Follow the Roadway Design Guidelines for best practices in design, planning, management, maintenance, and construction of transportation assets.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants by increasing transportation options and use of alternative fuels.
• Protect wildlife corridors, reduce habitat fragmentation, and enhance terrestrial and aquatic organism passage on and adjacent to Service lands to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant populations.
5. Access, Mobility, and Connectivity: The program will ensure that units open to public visitation have adequate transportation options for all users, including underserved, underrepresented, and mobility-limited populations.
Objectives:
• Offer a wide range of transportation modes and linkages for on and offsite access.
• Provide a clear way finding information both on and off Service lands.
• Through the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program, integrate Service transportation facilities with local community transportation systems in a way that encourages local visitation and provides economic benefits to partner and gateway communities.
• Through coordinated planning, provide context-appropriate transportation facilities that address the specific needs of local visitor groups and respect the natural setting of the refuge or hatchery.
• Address congestion issues to and within Service units.
6. Visitor Experience: The program will enhance the visitation experience through improvement and investment in the transportation network.
Objectives:
• Integrate interpretation, education, and resource stewardship principles into the transportation experience.
• Evaluate the feasibility of alternative transportation systems at all stations and implement where appropriate.
• Encourage connections with existing and planned public and private transportation services.
• Design infrastructure in such a way that highlights the landscape and not the transportation facility.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final LRTP.
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment-including your personal identifying information-may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
60-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a renewal to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart L,
You must submit comments by May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
•
•
Kelly Odom, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787-1775 to request additional information about this ICR.
The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701,
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, BSEE is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. Applications for surface commingling and measurement applications are subject to cost recovery and BSEE regulations specify service fees for these requests.
Regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart L, implement these statutory requirements. We use the information to ensure that the volumes of hydrocarbons produced are measured accurately, and royalties are paid on the proper volumes. Specifically, we need the information to:
• Determine if measurement equipment is properly installed, provides accurate measurement of production on which royalty is due, and is operating properly;
• Obtain rates of production data in allocating the volumes of production measured at royalty sales meters, which can be examined during field inspections;
• Ascertain if all removals of oil and condensate from the lease are reported;
• Determine the amount of oil that was shipped when measurements are taken by gauging the tanks rather than being measured by a meter;
• Ensure that the sales location is secure and production cannot be removed without the volumes being recorded; and
• Review proving reports to verify that data on run tickets are calculated and reported accurately.
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197,
1. Filing fees associated with submitting requests for approval of simple applications (applications to temporarily reroute production (for a duration not to exceed 6 months); production tests prior to pipeline construction; departures related to meter proving, well testing, or sampling frequency ($1,271 per application)) or,
2. Submitting a request for approval of a complex application (creation of new facility measurement points (FMPs); association of leases or units with existing FMPs; inclusion of production from additional structures; meter updates which add buyback gas meters or pigging meters; other applications which request deviations from the approved allocation procedures).
a. Evaluate whether the collection is necessary or useful;
b. Evaluate the accuracy of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
c. Enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of technology.
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on October 1, 2015 (80 FR 59183) and determined on January 4, 2016 that it would conduct expedited reviews (81 FR 1966, January 14, 2016).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on March 2, 2016.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 6, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Kris Howard, Program Manager, National Tracing Center Division, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Businesses or other for-profit.
Other (if applicable): Individuals or households.
Abstract: Per 27 CFR 555.128 where an explosive materials business or operations is discontinued the records must be delivered within 30 days following the business or operations discontinuance to the ATF Out of Business Records Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Evaluation of the Young Offenders Grants,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Evaluation of the Young Offenders Grants information collection. This ICR is limited to the collection of baseline information needed at the outset of the study for people who are randomly assigned. Baseline information includes characteristics of study participants collected through a background information form, Form ETA-9167, and detailed contact information collected through a contact information form, Form ETA-9168. Workforce Investment Act section 185(d) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Work-Study Program of the Child Labor Regulations,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-WHD, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Work-Study Program (WSP) of the Child Labor Regulations information collection codified in regulations 29 CFR 570.35b. This program allows for the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds under conditions Child Labor Regulation 3 otherwise prohibit. The information collection requirements include submitting a written request for the Administrator of the WHD to approve a WSP; preparing a written participation agreement that is signed by the teacher-coordinator, employer, and student and that the student's parent or guardian either signs or consents to; and school and employer records maintenance. Fair Labor Standards Act section 11(c) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Gamma Radiation Surveys information collection codified in regulations 30 CFR 57.5047 that requires a covered mine operator to maintain a record of cumulative individual gamma radiation exposure to ensure that annual exposure does not exceed five (5) Rems. This requirement protects the health of workers in mines with radioactive ores. Federal Mine Safety & Health Act sections 101(a) and 103(c) and (h) authorize this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 811(a), 813(c), and 813(h).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Unemployment Insurance Call Center Final Assessment Guide,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Call Center Final Assessment Guide information collection. The ETA proposes to conduct a comprehensive study of UI call center operations by collecting data to understand key operational challenges and issues in light of Administration policy priorities and of other partner programs. More specifically, approval of this ICR would authorize the ETA to conduct telephone interviews of UI State Workforce Administration Administrators and Directors. The interviews would gather detailed documentation of how states operate their UI call centers, as well as gather information on how existing state UI call centers' successful practices and measurable performances are used. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before April 6, 2016.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the
(1) The underground mine is a small mine and there is hardly enough physical room to accommodate more than three or four miners in the working places. An attempt to utilize five or more rescue team members in the mine's confined working places would result in a diminution of safety to both the miners at the mine and members of the rescue team.
(2) Records of Mine Emergency responses over the last 20 years indicate that rescue and recovery operations conducted by Anthracite Underground Rescue, Inc. (AUGR) have never utilized more than one team. In addition, when one rescue team was utilized there were no more than three members traveling to a working place simultaneously.
(3) The electric power does not reach beyond the bottom of the slope. Therefore, all coal haulage is done by hand trammed cars or battery electric motor and car at very slow rates of speed. These facts considerably reduce the risk of a disaster and the need for as many mine rescue team members as required by the regulations.
(4) The employment in the underground anthracite mines has decreased substantially and the ratio of mine rescue teams to underground miners has correspondingly been reduced. The loss of the underground work force dramatically reduces the pool of qualified people available to fill mine rescue positions.
(5) Pennsylvania Deep Mine Safety presently has four deep mine inspectors that have deep mine rescue training and are pledged to assist if required in an emergency. In addition, the surrounding small mines have always provided assistance during mine emergencies.
(6) As a result of poor market conditions and a significant number of underground mines now conducting final pillar recovery, the downward trends are expected to continue.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
(1) The required transportation of solid concrete blocks or equivalent materials manually on ladders on pitching anthracite veins will expose miners to greater hazard(s) of falling, being struck by falling materials or resulting strains or sprains due to the weight of the materials.
(2) No evidence of ignition in accessible abandoned anthracite workings has been found to date.
(3) In veins pitching greater than 45 degrees the weight of the seal is transferred to the low side rib (coal).
(4) Irregularly shaped anthracite openings would require substantial cutting of rectangular blocks to insure proper tie-in to hitches in the top rock, bottom rock and low side coal rib.
(5) Concrete block and mortar construction for openings parallel to the pitching vein would be almost impossible to construct and subject to failure merely by its own weight.
(6) Isolation of inaccessible abandoned workings from an active section will permit natural venting of any potential methane build-up through surface breeches, and the mine has not experienced measurable liberations of methane to date.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The slope will be traveled and physically examined for its entire length on a monthly basis with dates, times and initials placed at sufficient locations throughout, and results of the examination recorded on the surface. Any hazards found will be corrected prior to personnel transportation in the slope. The petitioner states that:
(1) The intake haulage slope on moderate to steep pitch of 66 degrees is equipped with a ladder as part of its escapeway requirement. If an examination had to be conducted, platforms across the ladder at multiple locations would require miners to climb around each platform obstruction, significantly increasing a fall hazard down the slope.
(2) If examinations were conducted and platforms not provided, a significant injury or fall potential exists each time a miner gets in and out of the gunboat.
(3) Accurate air readings cannot be obtained with the gunboat blocking a major portion of the intake slope. If platforms were installed across the intake almost total restriction of the mine's only intake would occur.
(4) Since the intake haulage slope is the mine's only intake, oxygen deficiency is highly unlikely.
(5) Due to wet conditions in the mine, dates, times, and initials frequently disappear in a matter of hours.
(6) Anthracite coal historically liberates methane only during active mining thereby eliminating the likelihood of methane leaking from inaccessible abandoned areas into the intake slope. Any such leakage would be detected at the proposed sampling location at each intake air split on the gangway.
(7) The return slope airway is located immediately adjacent to the intake slope and air leakage would occur toward the return.
(8) While air losses from the intake to the return slopes are anticipated, a significant change in readings from those of the previous day to week would warrant additional air readings and gas test at various locations in the slope. Significant changes in readings, however, occur on a seasonal basis as a result of natural ventilation changes and should not be use as a basis for evaluating the efficiency of the mine's ventilation system.
(9) Only increases in air quantity readings obtained just inby the slope portal when measured in the slope are indicative of air leakage through seals in the wrong direction.
(10) Examination of the intake haulage slope on a monthly basis will ensure the safety of miners traveling the intake escapeway and significantly minimize the fall hazard potential of miners conducting examinations.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
(1) Due to the steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, contours provide no useful information and their presence would make portions of the map illegible.
(2) Use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines has been practiced since the late 1800's and provides critical information relative to the spacing between vein and proximity to other mine workings which fluctuate considerably.
(3) The vast majority of current underground anthracite mining involves either second mining of remnant pillars from previous mining/mine operators or the mining of veins of lower quality in proximity to inaccessible and frequently flooded abandoned mine workings which may or may not be mapped.
(4) All mapping for mines above and below is researched by the petitioner's contract engineer for the presence of interconnecting rock tunnels between veins in relation to the mine and a hazard analysis is done when mapping indicates the presence of known or potentially flooded workings.
(5) When no rock tunnel connections are found, mine workings found to exist beyond 100 feet from the mine are recognized as presenting no hazard to the mine due to the pitch of the vein rock separation between.
(6) The mine workings above and below are usually inactive and abandoned and not usually subject to changes during the life of the mine.
(7) Where evidence indicates prior mining was conducted on a vein above or below and research exhausts the availability of mine mapping, the vein will be considered to be mined and flooded and appropriate precautions taken through § 75.388, where possible.
(8) Where potential hazards exist and in mine drilling capabilities limit penetration, surface boreholes may be used to intercept the workings and the results analyzed prior to the beginning of mining in the affected area.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
(1) The low production and slow rate of advance in anthracite mining make surveying on 6-month intervals impractical. In most cases annual development is frequently limited to less than 500 feet of gangway advance with associated up-pitch development.
(2) The vast majority of small anthracite mines use non-mechanized, hand-loading mining methods.
(3) Development above the active gangway is designed to mine into the level above at designated intervals thereby maintaining sufficient control between both surveyed gangways.
(4) The available engineering/surveyor resources are limited in the anthracite coal fields. Surveying on an annual basis is difficult to achieve with four individual contractors currently available.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
(1) A functional safety catch has not yet been developed; consequently, the makeshift devices, if installed, would be activated on knuckles and curves when no emergency exists causing a tumbling effect on the conveyance that would increase rather than decrease the hazard to miners.
(2) As an alternative, the petitioner proposes to operate the man cage or steel gunboat with secondary safety connections securely fastened around the gunboat and to the hoisting rope above the main connecting device and use hoisting ropes having a factor of safety in excess of the 4 to 8 to 1 as suggested in the American Standards Specifications for the Use of Wire Rope for Mines.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will provide no less than the same measure or protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.
The NSF management officials having responsibility for three advisory committees listed below have determined that renewing these groups for another two years is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861
Effective date for renewal is March 3, 2016. For more information, please contact Crystal Robinson, NSF, at (703) 292-8687.
OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction with each Board meeting was published in the
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before May 6, 2016.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
a. Estimated number of respondents: 400.
b. Estimated average burden per response: 75 minutes.
c. Frequency of response: One Time.
d. Annual reporting burden: 500 hours.
Peace Corps.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before April 6, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB approval number and should be sent via email to:
Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20526, (202) 692-1236, or email at
To better serve the Returned Volunteer Population, Peace Corps Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services (3GL) has developed a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (RPCV) Portal. This Portal will allow RPCVs to update their contact information, share stories, request official documentation, view their service history, and enroll in outreach and marketing campaigns.
a. Number of Respondents (first year): 50,000.
b. Number of Respondents (annually): 3,000.
c. Frequency of response: 2 times.
d. Completion time: 5 minutes.
e. Annual burden hours (first year): 8,333 hours.
f. Annual burden hours (annually): 500 hours.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 77 negotiated service agreement. 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.
On March 1, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 77 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted amendment and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1.
The Amendment changes prices and terms of the contract, replacing Sections I. parts E., F., and G.; Section III; and Table 2.
The Postal Service intends for the amendment to become effective two business days after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than March 9, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-31 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than March 9, 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 a modification to an existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. 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.
On February 29, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a modification to the existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1-2.
The Modification “revises a few articles in the agreement to change the mailer's minimum commitment and mail preparation requirements, and amend[s] Annex 1 of the agreement.”
The Postal Service states that it will “notify the Mailer of the Effective Date of this Modification within thirty (30) days after receiving the approval of the entities that have oversight responsibilities for the [Postal Service].”
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than March 8, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2015-142 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than March 8, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
Advisors Asset Management, Inc. (“Advisors Asset Management”) and AAM ETF Trust (the “Trust”).
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 28, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 18925 Base Camp Road, Suite 203, Monument, Colorado 80132.
Kay-Mario Vobis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6728, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust, a business trust organized under the laws of Massachusetts, intends to register with the Commission as an open-end management investment company. The applicants are requesting relief not only for the Trust and its initial series, AAM Income Growth ETF (“Initial Fund”), but also with respect to any future series of the Trust, and to any registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that may be created in the future and that utilizes active management investment strategies (“Future Funds” and collectively with the Initial Fund, the “Funds”).
2. Each Fund will (a) be advised by Advisors Asset Management or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Advisors Asset Management (each such entity and any successor thereto, an “Adviser”)
3. The Trust will enter into a distribution agreement with one or more distributors (“Distributor”). Each Distributor will be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and will act as Distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds. No Distributor will be affiliated with the Listing Exchange. The Distributor of any Fund may be an “affiliated person” or an affiliated person of an affiliated person of the Fund's Adviser or Fund Sub-Adviser.
4. Shares of each Fund will be purchased from the Trust only in large aggregations of a specified number referred to as “Creation Units.” Creation Units may be purchased through orders placed with the Distributor by or through an “Authorized Participant” which is either (a) a broker-dealer or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”) System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission, or (b) a participant (“DTC Participant”) in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and which in either case has executed a participant agreement with the Distributor with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. Purchases and redemptions of the Funds' Creation Units will be processed either through an enhanced clearing process available to DTC Participants that are also participants in the CNS system of the NSCC (the “NSCC Process”) or through a manual clearing process that is available to all DTC Participants (the “DTC Process”).
5. In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Accordingly, except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
6. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, a Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
7. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Listing Exchange or a major market data vendor will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day an amount representing the Fund's estimated NAV, which will be the value of the Fund's Portfolio Positions, on a per Share basis.
8. An investor purchasing or redeeming a Creation Unit will be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to protect continuing shareholders of the Funds from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
9. Beneficial owners of Shares may sell their Shares in the secondary market. Shares will be listed on a Listing Exchange and traded in the secondary market in the same manner as other equity securities. Applicants state that it is expected that one or more specialists or market makers (collectively, “Exchange Market Makers”) will be assigned for the Shares of each Fund. The price of Shares trading on the Listing Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the sale of Shares on the Listing Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
10. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include arbitrageurs and that Exchange Market Makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities.
11. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as a conventional open-end investment company or mutual fund. Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” Any advertising material that describes the
12. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include, or will include links to, each Fund's current Prospectus, which may be downloaded. That Web site, which will be publicly available at no charge, will also contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will also disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of its Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Applicants request an order to permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that each investor is entitled to purchase or redeem Creation Units rather than trade the individual Shares in the secondary market. Applicants further state that because of the arbitrage possibilities created by the redeemability of Creation Units, it is expected that the market price of an individual Share will not vary materially from its NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, which is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, rather than at the current offering price described in the Fund's Prospectus. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been intended (a) to prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) to prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) to ensure an orderly distribution of shares by eliminating price competition from brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants state that (a) secondary market transactions in Shares would not cause dilution for owners of such Shares because such transactions do not involve the Trust or Funds as parties, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains immaterial.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that the settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants assert that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Positions to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to 15 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order for each Global Fund to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local market(s) where transactions in its Portfolio Positions customarily clear and settle, but in any event, within a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days.
8. Applicants submit that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Global Fund to be made within 15 calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e).
9. Section 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” of a fund as “the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies” of the fund and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
10. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units from the Funds by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
11. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting the affiliated persons described above from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions. The valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in the same manner, and in the same manner as the Fund's Portfolio Positions, regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Except with respect to cash determined in accordance with the procedures described in section I.G.1. of the application, Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be the same for all purchasers and redeemers. Therefore, applicants state that the in-kind purchases and redemptions will afford no opportunity for the specified affiliated persons of a Fund to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares of that Fund. Applicants do not believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching of the Fund.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as the Funds operate in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Funds will be listed on a Listing Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain on a per Share basis, for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Listing Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. The Adviser or any Fund Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively managed exchange-traded funds.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On January 21, 2016, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 4554 to require alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) to submit additional order information to FINRA.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 4554 to require ATSs to report additional order information to FINRA. While ATSs already submit order information to FINRA that is required by the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) rules, there is additional order information not currently required to be reported to OATS, such as order re-pricing events (
As described in more detail in Item C, FINRA initially solicited comment on this proposal in
The first category of proposed changes applies to all ATSs when reporting the receipt of an order to OATS. Specifically, the proposed rule would require each ATS to indicate on all orders received whether it displays subscriber orders outside of the ATS (other than to alternative trading system employees).
For purposes of this rule, the term “order” includes a broker-dealer's proprietary quotes that are transmitted to an ATS.
FINRA notes that, under current Rule 301(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation ATS, ATSs are required to file an amendment on Form ATS at least 20 calendar days
An ATS also would be required to report, for all orders, the NBBO (or relevant reference price) in effect at the time of order receipt and the timestamp of when the ATS captured the effective NBBO (or relevant reference price); as part of this report, the ATS must identify the market data feed it used to obtain the NBBO (or relevant reference price).
If, for any reason, the ATS uses an alternative feed to the one that was reported on its ATS data submission, the ATS must notify FINRA via email of the fact that an alternative source was used, identify the alternative source, and specify the date(s), time(s) and securities for which the alternative source was used. Finally, each ATS would be required to provide the sequence number assigned to the order event by the ATS's matching engine.
The second category of proposed changes applies to all ATSs when reporting the execution of an order to OATS. Specifically, each ATS must record and report the NBBO (or relevant reference price) in effect at the time of order execution, and the timestamp of when the ATS captured the effective NBBO (or relevant reference price). An ATS must identify the market data feed used by the ATS to obtain the NBBO (or other reference price). If for any reason, the ATS uses an alternative feed than the one that was reported on its ATS data submission, the ATS must notify FINRA via email of the fact that an alternative source was used, identify the alternative source, and specify the date(s), time(s) and securities for which the alternative source was used.
The third category of changes applies only to display ATSs and requires that those ATSs report the following additional order receipt information: (1) Whether the order is hidden or displayable; (2) display quantity; (3) reserve quantity, if applicable; (4) displayed price; and (5) the price entered. If the matching engine re-prices a displayed order or changes the display quantity of a displayed order, the ATS must report the time of such modification and the applicable new display price or size.
The initial proposal applied these requirements to both display and non-display ATSs and would have required reporting of all changes to the price and size of orders, whether or not displayed. Commenters raised concerns with these proposed requirements, especially those related to non-displayed orders, because they would have required ATSs to record and report information that they indicated that they do not currently capture.
Similarly, ATSs are currently required to report a variety of order-specific information to FINRA via OATS. For example, upon receipt of an order, a member must report the number of shares to which the order applies, any limit or stop price prescribed in the order, special handling requests, and the time at which the order is received.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to require that ATSs that are ADF Trading Centers report information in addition to the requirements for all ATSs and display ATSs described above. Specifically, under the proposed rule, if a change to the displayed size or price of an order resulted in a new quote being transmitted to the ADF, the ADF Trading Center would be required to report the quote identifier provided to the ADF. In addition, an ADF Trading Center would be required to provide a new quote identifier if an order held by the ADF Trading Center becomes associated with a quote identifier based on an action by the matching engine related to different order(s), (
10:00:01 a.m.: ATS receives order #7896 to buy 500 shares of XYZ at $10.
10:00:02 a.m.: ATS receives order #8521 to buy 500 shares of XYZ at $10.
10:00:03 a.m.: ATS submits a quote to the ADF to buy 1,000 shares of XYZ at $10, and assigns the quote ID of #1234.
The ATS would be required to report the quote ID of #1234 with orders #7896 and #8521 so that FINRA would be able to identify the specific orders that were represented in quote ID #1234.
10:00:20 a.m.: Order #7896 to buy 500 shares at $10 is cancelled.
10:00:21 a.m.: The ATS must update its bid to reflect the cancellation of order #7896. Since quote ID #1234 reflected the now-cancelled order, the ATS must assign a new quote identifier when it updates its bid to reflect the cancellation of order #7896.
10:00:22 a.m.: The ATS updates its quote on the ADF to buy 500 shares of XYZ at $10, and assigns the quote ID of #5678.
The ATS will be required to submit a report to OATS for order #8521 to reflect the new quote ID of #5678 now associated with the order. This report is necessary so that
The proposed requirements for ADF Trading Centers largely replicate the requirements applicable to ADF Trading Centers that were proposed in
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change no later than 90 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 180 days following Commission approval.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will greatly enhance FINRA's ability to surveil activity occurring within an ATS, and by extension FINRA's ability to surveil for potentially abusive algorithmic trading activity more generally across markets. For example, to effectively conduct quotation-based surveillance such as layering and quote spoofing, FINRA needs access to comprehensive order information and to the identity of firms that are generating ATS quotations. The proposed rule change would address such information gaps and would provide FINRA with additional information that can be integrated into FINRA's surveillance patterns to support alert generation and analysis. In addition, the proposed rule change would also increase FINRA's ability to detect the use of a display or non-display ATS by a market participant to further a wide range of other potential market-specific and cross-market manipulative activities that market participants may engage in by placing orders or executing trades on the ATS itself or across multiple ATSs or exchanges.
FINRA believes that applying this proposal to NMS stocks is consistent with the Act because the potentially abusive trading activity that the proposal is designed to detect, including, but not limited to, layering, quote spoofing, and mid-point pricing manipulation within ATSs and across markets is of particular concern with respect to NMS stocks.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will apply equally to all similarly situated ATSs. FINRA also notes that the proposed rule change is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations by enhancing its ability to efficiently surveil activity occurring within ATSs and across markets.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance FINRA's surveillance of potential abusive trading activity, including, but not limited to, layering, quote spoofing, and mid-point pricing manipulation within ATSs and across markets. Specifically, the proposal requires ATSs to report additional order information to FINRA, such as specific order types, and whether an order can be routed away from the ATS for execution, so that FINRA has the relevant information to reconstruct an ATS's order book for surveillance purposes.
For purposes of this rule proposal, FINRA defines the economic baseline as the current regulatory reporting requirements of an ATS to FINRA. Currently, each ATS has the same reporting requirements to FINRA related to OATS that apply to all FINRA members.
FINRA does not believe that this proposed rule change will impose a significant burden on its member firms that are ATSs. Given the level of order activity generated on ATSs, ATSs currently report a significant amount of order information to OATS. The proposed rule change would require an
FINRA expects that there will be approximately 42 ATSs that will be impacted by the rule change, where they will be required to report additional information at the time of the order receipt and order execution. Of those, five are identified as display ATSs, and therefore will be subject to additional reporting requirements at the time of the order receipt such as whether the order is hidden or displayable, display quantity, reserve quantity, displayed price and price entered.
FINRA also acknowledges that ATSs may incur some costs associated with updating their reporting systems to reflect the new requirements introduced by this rule proposal. However, some of the reporting requirements under this Rule, such as an indicator whether the order can be routed away from the ATS and display size, have already been implemented due to the National Market System Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program,
As of February 2016, there are no ATSs that are also ADF Trading Centers and the requirements on reporting quote identifiers would not be applicable to the approximately 42 ATSs that are active at the time of the writing of this filing.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act
This proposal, in addition to another proposal involving OATS order reporting, was published for comment in
As proposed in
While some of the commenters supported the overall goal of increased surveillance of ATSs and increased transparency of ATS operations,
Several commenters also stated that the proposal should be modified to reflect the differences between exchanges and ATSs. Commenters noted that ATSs may use variants of price/time priority, and may also allow subscribers to opt out of executing against certain order flow.
FIF recommended that the proposed 0.25% volume threshold should be modified so that it is consistent with the current fair access threshold of Regulation ATS (ADV of five percent or more of the aggregate average daily share volume) or the Regulation SCI ATS threshold.
After the close of the comment period, FINRA engaged in discussions with representatives of several ATSs to better understand their concerns with the proposal and to solicit input on possible alternatives to the proposal. In response to commenters and in furtherance of those discussions, FINRA has amended the proposal in several respects as noted above in Item II.A.1. The most significant change is the removal of the requirement for non-displayed ATSs to report changes in price or size, including changes to pegged orders each time the pegging price changes. Based on the comment letters and FINRA's subsequent discussions with several ATSs, such events generally would not be created by an ATS matching engine unless a new order on the opposite side of the market that is eligible to execute against that resting order is received and can match against the resting order. Consequently, the initial requirement to report re-pricing events would have required ATSs to create such events for the specific purpose of reporting to FINRA. FINRA believes that removing the requirement to report changes to price or size for non-displayed ATSs responds to commenters' concerns that the proposal is complex, will significantly impact members' OATS reporting practices, and will require members to create information that they do not currently capture. At the same time, FINRA believes that the revised proposal still enhances FINRA's surveillance capabilities by requiring ATSs that display subscriber orders to report this information. FINRA believes that this information is particularly relevant to display ATSs, and that FINRA does not currently possess this information.
FINRA has also amended the proposal to remove the volume-based threshold that would trigger the reporting requirements. FINRA believes that removing the reporting threshold will increase the number of ATSs that report the proposed order information, and by extension increase FINRA's ability to enhance its surveillance of trading and order activity occurring on or through ATSs. At the same time, FINRA notes that removing the proposed reporting threshold should not significantly impact the reporting status of most ATSs, since the majority of ATSs would have satisfied the proposed reporting requirement. To the extent that FINRA is distinguishing among ATSs in setting forth reporting requirements, FINRA believes that a more useful distinction is between non-display and display ATSs, as it is currently proposing.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 11, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) adopted Rule 613 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”) to require national securities exchanges and national securities associations (“self-regulatory organizations” or “SROs”) to jointly submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement, and maintain a consolidated order tracking system, or consolidated audit trail (“CAT”), with respect to the trading of NMS securities, that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities, across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution (“CAT NMS Plan”).
Rule 613 sets forth certain minimum requirements for the CAT NMS Plan that, among other things, relate to its operation and administration, data recording and reporting, clock synchronization and time stamps, the Central Repository, surveillance, compliance, and expansion to other securities and transactions.
In connection with their preparation of the Amended and Restated CAT NMS Plan, including assessing the considerations and the views of their members and other market participants, the SROs reached the conclusion that additional flexibility in certain of the minimum requirements specified in Rule 613 would allow them to propose a more efficient and cost-effective approach without adversely affecting the reliability or accuracy of CAT Data, or its security and confidentiality. Accordingly, on January 30, 2015, the SROs filed an application, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the Exchange Act,
Section 36 of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority, with certain limitations, to “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.”
After reviewing the Exemption Request described below, the Commission believes that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the requested exemptive relief. As discussed more fully below, the Commission is persuaded to provide flexibility in the discrete areas discussed in the Exemption Request so that the alternative approaches can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. Doing so could allow for more efficient and cost-effective approaches than otherwise would be permitted. The Commission at this stage is not deciding whether the proposed approaches detailed below are more efficient or effective than those in Rule 613.
The Commission also believes granting the requested exemptive relief is consistent with the protection of investors. Doing so will provide the public an opportunity to consider and comment on whether these proposed alternative approaches would indeed be more efficient and cost-effective than those otherwise required by Rule 613, and whether such approaches would adversely affect the reliability or accuracy of CAT Data or otherwise undermine the goals of Rule 613. Moreover, if—as the SROs represent—efficiency gains and cost savings would result from including the proposed approaches in the CAT NMS Plan without adverse effects, then the resultant benefits could potentially flow to investors (
The CAT NMS Plan has not yet been published for public comment. The Commission is not concluding at this time that a CAT NMS Plan incorporating the additional flexibility provided by the exemptive relief granted in this Order is necessary or appropriate in the public interest. That evaluation will be made only after the Commission considers the public comments, completes its economic analysis, and fully assesses the CAT NMS Plan. Instead, by granting the requested exemptive relief, the Commission only is providing the SROs more latitude in proposing a CAT NMS Plan, in certain discrete areas, as specifically proposed in the Exemption Request.
Rule 613(c)(7) provides that the CAT NMS Plan must require each national securities exchange, national securities association, and any member of such exchange or association (“CAT Reporter”) to record and electronically report to the Central Repository details for each order and each reportable event, including the routing and modification or cancellation of an order.
The SROs do not believe that their proposed approach would have an adverse effect on the various ways in which, and purposes for which, regulators would use, access, and analyze CAT Data.
The one data element that would not be captured in the options market maker quoting data to be submitted by the options exchange is the time the market maker routes its quote, or any modification or cancellation thereof, to an exchange (“Quote Sent Time”).
The SROs, in consultation with their members, Bidders and the Development Advisory Group (“DAG”),
The SROs represent in the Exemption Request that they solicited the views of their members and other appropriate parties to ensure that the SROs considered a variety of informed views.
In their Exemption Request, the SROs represent that they do not believe that their proposed approach for reporting options market maker quotation information to the Central Repository would impact the reliability or accuracy of CAT Data,
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the SROs in support of the SROs' exemption request from Rule 613(c)(7)(ii) and (iv)
Based on the information provided by the SROs in the Exemption Request, the Commission is persuaded to grant exemptive relief to provide flexibility such that the alternative approach to collecting options market maker quotations described in the Exemption Request can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. The SROs' describe an approach that could result in Options Market Maker quotation data, including Quote Sent Time, being reported to the Central Repository singly by the options exchanges rather than dually by both the options exchanges and Options Market Makers. To the extent the options exchanges would report the same data otherwise reported by Options Market Makers in an efficient, accurate and reliable manner, then the ability of the Commission and the SROs to access and use CAT Data should not be adversely affected. Moreover, the potentially lower cost associated with eliminating duplicative reporting and storage of such data represents a possible benefit.
Therefore, the Commission finds it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the SROs from Rule 613(c)(7)(ii) and (iv). The Commission notes that the proposed approach described in the Exemption Request would require that: (1) Options market makers report to the relevant options exchange the Quote Sent Time along with any quotation, or any modification or cancellation thereof; and (2) the options exchange submits the quotation data received from options market makers, including the Quote Sent Time, to the Central Repository without change.
Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A) requires that for the original receipt or origination of an
The SROs state that they do not believe that the Customer Information Approach, described below, would have an adverse effect on the various ways in which, and purposes for which, regulators would use, access, and analyze the audit trail data reported under Rule 613.
The SROs also note that the Bidders, each of whom incorporated the Customer Information Approach in its Bid, asserted that the Customer Information Approach, described below, would allow all events pertaining to an order to be reliably and accurately linked together in a manner that allows regulators efficient access to complete order information.
Under the Customer Information Approach, instead of requiring a universal Customer-ID for each Customer to be used for all orders, the CAT NMS Plan would require each broker-dealer to assign a unique firm-designated identifier (“FDI”) to each trading account.
To ensure that the data elements relating to the identity of every Customer in the Central Repository is complete and accurate, the SROs represent in their Exemption Request that broker-dealers would be required to submit to the Central Repository daily updates for reactivated accounts, newly established or revised FDIs, or reportable Customer identifying information.
The Exemption Request describes the process by which the SROs solicited views of their members and other appropriate parties regarding the Customer Information Approach.
The SROs believe that the reliability and accuracy of the data reported to the Central Repository under the Customer Information Approach is the same as under the approach outlined in Rule 613 with regard to Customer-IDs because the identifiers used under the proposed Customer Information Approach are also unique identifiers.
The SROs believe that the Customer Information Approach would strengthen the security and confidentiality of the information reported to the Central Repository, thereby maintaining the efficacy of the Central Repository and the confidence of the market participants.
The SROs also believe that the Customer Information Approach would be a more efficient and cost-effective method of identifying Customers and therefore would have a positive impact on competition, efficiency, and capital formation.
In support of their request, the SROs also provide the costs to implement the Customer-ID requirement approach as set forth in Rule 613 in their Exemption Request.
The SROs note that they considered a variety of possible alternative approaches to complying with Rule 613, in addition to the Customer Information Approach.
Rule 613(c)(7)(iv)(F) requires that “[t]he CAT-Reporter-ID of the broker-dealer or Customer-ID of the
According to the SROs, for regulatory purposes it is most critical to ascertain whether the modification or cancellation instruction was given by the Customer or was instead initiated by the broker-dealer or exchange, rather than capturing the specific person who gave the instruction.
Rule 613(c)(7)(viii)(B) requires broker-dealers to report to the Central Repository “Customer Account Information.”
The first circumstance for which the SROs propose to permit reporting of an effective date in lieu of an account open date is where a relationship identifier—rather than a parent account—has been established for an institutional Customer relationship.
The SROs explain that, in the above circumstance, no account open date is available for the parent relationship because there is no parent account.
Thus, the SROs propose in the above circumstance to permit broker-dealer CAT Reporters to report the effective date of the relationship identifier in lieu of an account open date. Where such institutional Customer relationships were established
The second circumstance for which the SROs propose to permit reporting of an effective date in lieu of an account open date is where particular legacy system data issues may prevent a broker-dealer from providing an account open date for any type of account (
(1) A broker-dealer has switched back office providers or clearing firms and the new back office/clearing firm system identifies the account open date as the date the account was opened on the new system;
(2) A broker-dealer is acquired and the account open date becomes the date that an account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system;
(3) Certain broker-dealers maintain multiple dates associated without accounts in their systems and do not designate in a consistent manner which date constitutes the account open date, as the parameters of each date are determined by the individual broker-dealer;
(4) No account open date exists for a proprietary account of a broker-dealer.
Thus, for accounts established
The SROs note that they do not seek exemptive relief concerning legacy systems data issues where a “date account opened” is available.
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the SROs in support of their request for exemptions from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A);
Based on the information provided by the SROs in the Exemption Request, the Commission is persuaded to grant exemptive relief to provide flexibility such that the proposed approach described in the Exemption Request can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. Specifically, the SROs describe a Customer Information Approach that could result in the linking, within the Central Repository, of FDIs to the appropriate Customer-ID and, ultimately, to the Customer. To the extent such data is linked in an efficient, accurate, reliable, and secure manner, the ability of the Commission and the SROs to access and use CAT Data should not be adversely affected. Additionally, the potentially lower cost of allowing broker-dealers to leverage their existing methods of identifying Customers represents a possible benefit. With respect to the reporting of the Customer providing the modification or cancellation instruction, and not the individual person doing so, the Commission recognizes that requiring the reporting of the individual person providing the modification or cancellation instruction would result in an inconsistent level of granularity between the Reportable Events of origination or receipt of an order, and the modification or cancellation of the order. With respect to reporting the account effective date in lieu of the account open date in the two particular circumstances described above (and lack of an “account number” and “account type” in the first of those circumstances
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the SROs from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A), (c)(7)(iv)(F), (c)(7)(viii)(B), and (c)(8). The Commission notes that the proposed Customer Information Approach described in the Exemption Request would require that: (1) For the original receipt or origination of an order, broker-dealers report an FDI for the Customer, rather than a Customer-ID, and that each FDI is unique across the firm for each business date; (2) broker-dealers submit an initial set of information to the Central Repository identifying the Customer, including the account type, account effective date, Customer's name, address, date of birth, tax identification number or social security number, an individual's role in the account (
The Commission additionally notes that, with respect to reporting on modification or cancellation instructions, the proposed approach described in the Exemption Request would require that: (1) CAT Reporters report whether a modification or cancellation instruction was given by the Customer associated with the order, or was initiated by the broker-dealer or exchange associated with the order; and (2) SRO and Commission regulatory staff have the ability to identify the Customer, broker-dealer or exchange that modified or cancelled the order.
The Commission further notes that the proposed approach allowing CAT Reporters to report an effective date
A CAT-Reporter-ID is “a code that uniquely and consistently identifies [a CAT Reporter] for purposes of providing data to the central repository.”
The SROs state that they do not believe the Existing Identifier Approach, described below, would negatively impact regulators' access, use, and analysis of CAT Data, and that it could even allow “additional levels of granularity compared to the CAT-Reporter-ID approach . . . without imposing additional requirements and associated costs on both CAT Reporters and the CAT Plan Processor.”
Under the Existing Identifier Approach, instead of reporting a universal CAT-Reporter-ID for each broker dealer to be used across all SROs for orders and Reportable Events, as described above, a broker-dealer would be permitted to report its existing SRO-assigned market participant identifier (“MPID”) used by the relevant SRO specifically for transactions occurring at that SRO (
According to the SROs, the Existing Identifier Approach would allow regulators to identify the broker-dealer associated with order information or a Reportable Event by linking those orders and Reportable Events to MPIDs, which in turn would be linked to a corresponding CAT-Reporter-ID generated by the Central Repository for internal use, and ultimately linked to the responsible broker-dealer.
The Exemption Request describes the process by which the SROs solicited the views of their members and other appropriate parties regarding the Existing Identifier Approach.
The SROs believe the reliability and accuracy of CAT Data under the proposed Existing Identifier Approach would not change from the approach mandated by Rule 613 and would not negatively impact “the accuracy with which the CAT Plan Processor would be able to link transactions.”
The SROs also believe that the proposed approach would not adversely impact the security and confidentiality of the information reported to the Central Repository.
The SROs also believe that the Existing Identifier Approach would have a positive impact on competition, efficiency and capital formation by reducing costs, technology, and other burdens on CAT Reporters while still meeting the Commission's goals for the CAT.
The SROs set forth various reasons the Existing Identifier Approach would be an efficient and cost-effective way to identify each CAT Reporter responsible for an order or Reportable Event.
In support of their request, the SROs provide cost information in the Exemption Request for implementing the CAT-Reporter-ID requirement mandated by Rule 613.
The SROs also state that industry members estimated that the cost for the Top 3 Tiers of CAT Reporters to implement the CAT-Reporter-ID requirement, “if it is required to be supplied on every route and destination interface used by the broker-dealers,” is $244 million, or $975,150 per firm.
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the SROs in support of their request for exemptions from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(C), (c)(7)(ii)(D), (c)(7)(ii)(E), (c)(7)(iii)(D), (c)(7)(iii)(E), (c)(7)(iv)(F), (c)(7)(v)(F),
Based on the information provided by the SROs in the Exemption Request, the Commission is persuaded to grant exemptive relief to provide flexibility such that the Existing Identifier Approach described in the Exemption Request can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. The SROs describe an approach that could result in the linking, within the Central Repository, of all broker-dealer MPIDs to the appropriate CAT-Reporter-ID and, ultimately, to the broker-dealer. To the extent such data is linked in an efficient, accurate and reliable manner, the ability of the Commission and the SROs to access and use CAT Data should not be adversely affected. Moreover, the additional granularity that could result from reporting MPIDs potentially identifying not just broker-dealers, but also their internal departments, businesses, or trading desks, represents a possible regulatory benefit. Additionally, the potentially lower cost resulting from CAT Reporters using their existing business processes and data flows to report broker-dealer MPIDs rather than reporting new broker-dealer CAT-Reporter-IDs using new systems and infrastructure represents a possible benefit.
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the SROs from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(C), (c)(7)(ii)(D), (c)(7)(ii)(E), (c)(7)(iii)(D), (c)(7)(iii)(E), (c)(7)(iv)(F), (c)(7)(v)(F), (c)(7)(vi)(B), and (c)(8),
Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) provides that the CAT NMS Plan must require each CAT Reporter to record and report to the Central Repository “the account number for any subaccounts to which the execution is allocated (in whole or part).”
The SROs do not believe that their proposed approach, described below, would affect the various ways in which, and purposes for which, regulators would use, access, and analyze CAT Data.
The SROs believe that reporting the account number for any subaccounts to which an execution is allocated raises significant practical problems, and would be burdensome, for CAT Reporters.
The SROs take the position that, although the ultimate allocation of shares executed that result from an aggregated order may be useful for regulatory purposes, tying allocations to each individual execution is of little regulatory benefit.
To ensure that regulators would receive meaningful information regarding subaccount allocations, the SROs propose to require CAT Reporters to send an Allocation Report following each execution to the Central Repository as part of the information required pursuant to 613(c)(7)(vi).
The Exemption Request uses the term “firm-designated identifier” when referring to the FDI assigned to a Customer account at a broker-dealer and uses the term “Firm Designated ID” when referring to the FDI of a subaccount.
In support of their exemption request, the SROs include a cost-benefit analysis in the Exemption Request. The SROs believe that the reporting requirements of Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) would impose significant costs on the industry,
The SROs note that industry members informed them that the cost for the Top 3 Tiers of CAT Reporters to link allocations to executions, as required by Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) would be $525 million.
The SROs discuss the proposed approach's impact on reliability and accuracy of data reported to the Central Repository.
The SROs represent that Bidders did not indicate that the reliability and accuracy of CAT Data under the proposed approach would be compromised during: (1) Its transmission and receipt from market participants; (2) data extraction, transformation, and loading at the Central Repository; (3) data maintenance and management at the Central Repository; or (4) use by regulators.
The SROs also state that the proposed approach would have a positive effect on competition, efficiency, and capital formation.
The SROs also describe the alternatives they considered in proposing this approach.
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the SROs in support of their request for an exemption from Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A), which requires that the CAT NMS Plan require each CAT Reporter to record and report the account number for any subaccounts to which an execution is allocated.
Based on the information provided by the SROs in the Exemption Request and April 2015 Supplement, the Commission is persuaded to grant exemptive relief to provide flexibility such that the alternative approach for providing subaccount allocation information described in the Exemption Request and April 2015 Supplement can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. The SROs describe an approach whereby CAT Reporters would not be required to report account numbers of subaccounts to which executions are allocated but instead would have to submit Allocation Reports containing, among other information, the FDIs of any accounts or subaccounts to which shares are allocated. To the extent the Central Repository is able to efficiently, accurately, and reliably link the subaccount holder to those with authority to trade on behalf of the account, the ability of the Commission and the SROs to access and use such data should not be significantly affected in many instances.
Therefore, the Commission finds it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the SROs from Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A). The Commission notes that the proposed approach described in the Exemption Request and April 2015 Supplement would require that: (1) CAT Reporters submit an Allocation Report to the Central Repository—which shall be processed and validated in the same manner as any other order lifecycle report—as part of the information required pursuant to 613(c)(7)(vi); (2) the Allocation Report contain, at a minimum, the number of shares allocated, the FDI of the account or subaccount (as applicable) to which the shares are allocated, the time of allocation, the identifier of the firm reporting the allocation, as well as the security, price per share, and the side of the order (buy/sell); and (3) the Central Repository be able to link the subaccount holder to those with authority to trade on behalf of the account.
Rule 613(c)(7) requires CAT Reporters to record and report the time of each Reportable Event.
The SROs do not believe that their proposed approach would have an adverse effect on the various ways in which, and purposes for which, regulators would use, access, and analyze CAT Data,
The SROs take the position that, while time stamp granularity to the millisecond reflects current industry standards with respect to electronically-processed events,
In the Exemption Request, the SROs provide examples of how CAT Reporters would record and report a Manual Order Event if the exemption is granted.
In support of their Exemption Request, the SROs considered their own experiences regarding time stamp requirements, and evaluated the various operational and technical issues related to the implementation of the time stamp granularity requirements of Rule 613 with regard to Manual Order Events.
In the Exemption Request, the SROs represent that their proposed approach of one-second time stamp granularity for Manual Order Events would not negatively impact the reliability or accuracy of CAT Data,
Finally, the SROs represent that they considered various alternatives to requiring a one-second time stamp granularity for Manual Order Events, including: (1) Requiring a millisecond time stamp as required by Rule 613; (2) the proposed approach, requiring a manual time stamp granularity of one second; and (3) requiring a manual time stamp of greater than one second.
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the SROs in support of their request for exemptions from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(E), 613(c)(7)(ii)(C), 613(c)(7)(iii)(C), 613(c)(7)(iv)(C), and 613(d)(3), as applicable to the recording and
Based on the information provided by the SROs in the Exemption Request, the Commission is persuaded to grant exemptive relief to provide flexibility such that the alternative approach to increment time stamps for capturing Manual Order Events described in the Exemption Request can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. The Commission notes that the time stamp process for Manual Order Events may likely be inherently imprecise due to the nature of the manual recording process.
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the SROs from Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(E), 613(c)(7)(ii)(C), 613(c)(7)(iii)(C), 613(c)(7)(iv)(C), and 613(d)(3).
Section 36 of the Exchange Act
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7.21, Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange recently amended its rules to prescribe the Securities Traders examination (Series 57) (the “Series 57 Examination”) as the qualifying examination for employees of ETP Holders (“Member”) engaged solely in proprietary trading.
The Exchange intends to announce the implementation date of the Series 57 registration requirement in a notice to members to be issued no later than 30 days after the effective date of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
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. The proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 21, 2016, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 12, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
The Exchange proposes to adopt fee code YC which would be appended to orders routed to ISE Mercury beginning February 16, 2016, which is the same date that ISE Mercury initiated trading.
The Exchange anticipates that the proposed fee structure will approximate the cost of routing orders to ISE Mercury. The Exchange also notes that the proposed fee for fee code YC is higher than the fees charged by ISE Mercury and is designed to approximate Routing Costs based on the highest rate ISE Mercury charges.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that its proposed pricing for routing to ISE Mercury burdens competition, as such rates are intended to approximate the cost of routing to ISE Mercury. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be excessive. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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 is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of decision instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's 2015 cost of capital.
The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2015. The decision solicits comments on the following issues: The railroads' 2015 current cost of debt capital; the railroads' 2015 current cost of preferred equity capital (if any); the railroads' 2015 cost of common equity capital; and the 2015 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis. Comments should focus on the various cost of capital components listed above using the same methodology followed in
Notices of intent to participate are due by March 30, 2016. Statements of the railroads are due by April 20, 2016. Statements of other interested persons are due by May 11, 2016. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by June 1, 2016.
Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing system or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at
Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
The Board's decision is posted on the Board's Web site,
49 U.S.C. 10704(a).
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of definition and procedural changes.
This notice announces the Agency's efforts to improve the carrier prioritization process to enable safety investigators to take more immediate action against carriers with the highest crash risk. Specifically, FMCSA is announcing a new High Risk Motor Carrier definition and associated investigative procedural changes. These changes correspond with the “Blueprint for Safety Leadership: Aligning Enforcement and Risk” report issued by a Federal Aviation Administration Independent Review Team (IRT) in July 2014. The IRT recommended that FMCSA sharpen its priority-setting focus and improve the timeliness of investigator actions on those motor carriers representing the highest risk. This notice explains the Agency's new High Risk Motor Carrier definition and associated investigative procedural changes.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 6, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System Docket ID [FMCSA-2015-0439] using any of the following methods:
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. David Yessen, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 609-275-2606 or by email:
With the implementation of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program in December 2010, FMCSA began using the Safety Measurement System (SMS) to identify high-risk carriers for onsite investigations (75 FR 18256). Section of 5305(a) of the recently enacted Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, (Dec. 4, 2015; 129 Stat. 1312) requires that FMCSA ensure, at a minimum, that a review is conducted on motor carriers that demonstrate through performance data that they are among the highest risk carriers for four consecutive months.
Under the previous policy, which is being superseded and can be found at 75 FR 18256, non-passenger carriers that meet or exceed specific SMS Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) Intervention Thresholds for two consecutive months must receive an onsite investigation within 12 months, unless they received an onsite investigation within the previous 24 months. Passenger carriers that meet or exceed the specific BASIC Intervention Thresholds for one month must receive an onsite investigation in 90 days unless they received an onsite investigation within the previous 12 months. Carriers that meet these criteria are considered “Mandatory” for prioritization.
As part of FMCSA's continuing efforts to improve CSA, the Agency is improving the carrier prioritization process to enable safety investigators to take more immediate action against carriers with the highest crash risk. The Agency's efforts also correspond with the “Blueprint for Safety Leadership: Aligning Enforcement and Risk” report issued by a Federal Aviation Administration Independent Review Team (IRT) in July 2014. The IRT report recommended that FMCSA should sharpen its priority-setting focus and improve the timeliness of investigator actions on those motor carriers representing the highest risk. The IRT report noted that the current High Risk definition does not specify which carriers require the most urgent attention or allow for dynamic risk management.
For these reasons, FMCSA developed, and today announces that it is adopting, a new High Risk motor carrier definition. Under the new definition, passenger carriers are “High Risk” if they have two or more of the following Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs), most closely correlated with crash risk, at or above the 90th percentile for one month and they have not received onsite investigation in the previous 12 months: Unsafe Driving, Crash Indicator; HOS Compliance, and Vehicle Maintenance. Non-passenger carriers are considered “High Risk” if they have two or more of these BASICs at or above the 90th percentile for two consecutive months and they have not received an onsite investigation in the previous 18 months.
The new definition will identify a smaller number of carriers, but this group of carriers will have a higher crash risk than the group of carriers identified under the current High Risk definition. This newly defined High Risk list will be the Agency's investigative priority. It will allow the Agency to more promptly conduct investigations of carriers that pose the greatest risk to public safety, rather than placing carriers at high crash risk in a longer queue of investigations.
In addition, to address those carriers with poor safety performance that will no longer fall under the High Risk definition, FMCSA will identify and monitor additional carriers with
Table 1 below provides the approximate number of carriers that would be identified annually under the new High Risk definition and the Agency's additional risk tiers.
This change will not impact a carrier's safety fitness rating, authority to operate, or SMS percentiles, and will not change the SMS methodology, or how FMCSA makes enforcement decisions.
The following table defines the criteria for designating Passenger and Non-Passenger carriers as “High Risk.” Table 2 is offered as reference material to assist the public in understanding the new High Risk definition.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 25 individuals for an exemption from the hearing requirement to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0328 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 25 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
Mr. Amaro, age 47, holds an operator's license in New Mexico.
Mr. Aseka, age 36, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Buretz, age 54, holds a class A CDL in Florida.
Mr. Cox, age 28, holds an operator's license in Idaho.
Mr. Dalrymple, age 61, holds a class A CDL in Arizona.
Mr. Dumars, age 53, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Farley, age 42, holds an operator's license in West Virginia.
Mr. Fernell, age 47, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Focken, age 27, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Frutchey, age 48, holds a chauffeur license in Michigan.
Mr. Glass, age 53, holds an operator's license in Oregon.
Mr. Haar, age 28, holds a class A CDL in Iowa.
Mr. McCarthy, age 51, holds an operator's license in Minnesota.
Mr. Meeker, age 39, holds a CDL in Michigan.
Mr. Norton, age 51, holds an operator's license in Michigan.
Mr. Peterson, age 28, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Paiz, age 31, holds an operator's license in New York.
Mr. Quijano, age 43, holds an operator's license in Hawaii.
Mr. Shoup, age 53, holds an operator's license in Ohio.
Mr. Sims, age 65, holds a class A CDL in Florida.
Mr. Spreen, age 35, holds an operator's license in Utah.
Mr. Valasquez, age 31, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Voss, age 26, holds an operator's license in Wisconsin.
Mr. Washington, age 50, holds a class A CDL in Illinois.
Mr. Weeaks, age 33, holds an operator's license in Oklahoma.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department of Transportation (US DOT).
Notice.
Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, this document provides notice that FRA is submitting the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information on Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation on an annual form and a quarterly form. FRA requests emergency processing and OMB authorization to collect the information on the annual form identified below five business days after publication of this Notice for a period of 180 days. FRA requests regular processing and OMB authorization to collect the information on the quarterly form identified below 90 days after publication of this Notice for a period of three years.
A copy of this individual ICR, with any public applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by telephoning FRA's Office of Safety Information Collection Clearance Officer, Robert Brogan (tel. (202) 493-6292), or FRA's Office of Administration Information Collection Clearance Officer, Kimberly Toone (tel. (202) 493-6132); these numbers are not toll-free; or by contacting Mr. Brogan via facsimile at (202) 493-6216 or Ms. Toone via facsimile at (202) 493-6497, or via email by contacting Mr. Brogan at
Under 49 U.S.C. 20157, as amended by the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, each railroad required to implement a positive train control (PTC) system must provide information to FRA on its implementation progress. Under the PTCEI Act, each railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157(a) must submit an annual progress report to FRA by March 31, 2016, and annually thereafter, until PTC implementation is complete. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1). The amended statute specifically requires each railroad to provide certain information in the annual reports regarding its progress toward implementing PTC, and authorizes FRA to request that railroads provide additional information in the annual progress reports.
In addition, 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2) requires FRA to conduct compliance reviews, at least annually, to ensure that each railroad is complying with its revised PTC implementation plan (PTCIP). The amended statute requires railroads to provide information to FRA that FRA determines is necessary to adequately conduct such compliance reviews.
To effectively monitor compliance with PTC system implementation, FRA is proposing to require each subject railroad and entity to submit quarterly reports on its implementation progress, in addition to the annual progress reports, under the PTCEI Act and FRA's statutory and regulatory investigative authorities.
FRA is delaying submission of the first quarterly form to allow time for the normal 60-days of notice and public comment directed to the agency and the additional 30 days of public comment directed to OMB while the submission undergoes OMB review as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its concomitant regulations. Since the annual report is statutorily required by March 31, 2016, FRA is seeking Emergency Processing for the annual form.
Annual and quarterly reporting will enable FRA to effectively track and report railroad progress and compliance, and to perform its roles in enforcement and industry oversight. The proposed quarterly progress report form is formatted similar to the “PTCIP template” (FRA F 6180.164, OMB No. 2130-0553) and will be used to track railroads' progress on, and compliance with, the core quantitative implementation elements and goals, some of which are included in the railroads' revised PTCIPs. The quarterly frequency will allow FRA to identify potential trends so that it can manage its technical assistance and monitor compliance accordingly. The annual report is required by law, but FRA is providing guidance on what type of information must be provided to ensure consistency of the information industry provides to FRA and its usefulness to FRA for assessing progress and compliance.
FRA is proposing that each railroad must submit its quarterly progress reports and annual progress reports using Form FRA F 6180.165 and Form FRA F 6180.166, respectively.
FRA is proposing to let the less detailed monthly reporting that it currently requires (approved under
As provided under 5 CFR 1320.13, FRA is requesting emergency processing for the new annual progress report collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations.
FRA is not requesting Emergency Processing for the quarterly PTC progress reports because the first quarterly reports will be due by June 30, 2016. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 35069(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Here, FRA is seeking public comment on its proposed quarterly reporting form to gather the information FRA needs to conduct the compliance reviews the PTCEI Act requires and is requesting a minimum OMB review and approval period of 30 days after the 60-day comment period expires. Comments on any aspect of the Quarterly PTC Progress Report may be sent to the following: Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, Attention: Mr. Robert Brogan or Ms. Kim Toone; or via email at the following:
The associated collection of information is summarized below.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of grant of petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224,
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 CFR part 555, NHTSA is granting a petition from Columbia Body Manufacturing Co. (“Columbia Body” or “petitioner”), a small volume manufacturer, for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224,
The subject vehicles manufactured by Columbia Body are exempted from FMVSS No. 224,
For legal questions, contact Mr. Ryan Hagen, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-200, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820. For technical questions, contact Mr. Robert Mazurowski, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1012; Fax: (202) 493-2990.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 CFR part 555, NHTSA is granting a petition from Columbia Body, a small volume manufacturer, for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224,
The petitioner's exemption will be limited to 210 dump body trailers over the next three years. Columbia Body must include language on the certification labels it affixes to the exempted dump body trailers it manufactures notifying the public that the vehicle has been exempted from FMVSS No. 224.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.
In recognition of the more limited resources and capabilities of small manufacturers, authority to grant exemptions based on substantial economic hardship and good faith efforts is provided in the Safety Act to enable the agency to give those manufacturers additional time to comply with motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary exemption to a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the most recent year of production is not more than 10,000 motor vehicles, on such terms as the Secretary deems appropriate, if the exemption would be consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and “compliance with the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.” (49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i)).
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555,
FMVSS No. 224,
The 2004 final rule decided against a regulatory exemption for gravity feed dump trailers, which do not have the mechanical drive and conveyor belt as discussed above, because gravity feed dump trailers can be versatile vehicles used for a wide variety of tasks. NHTSA was concerned that creating an exemption in the regulation itself for gravity feed dump trailers could potentially permit a large vehicle population with greater exposure than RCC horizontal discharge trailers to be exempted from the standard. Instead, NHTSA anticipated dealing with gravity feed dump trailers through the exemption process.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Columbia Body of Clackamas, Oregon, a small volume trailer manufacturer, petitioned the agency for a three year temporary exemption from the rear impact protection requirements in FMVSS No. 224 based on substantial economic hardship.
Columbia Body is a small manufacturer that currently employs 40 full time employees and has annual sales of $5-6 million. It produces two, three, and four axle “dump style” trailers that use a hydraulic hoist to raise the front end of the trailer and discharge its load through the tailgate. Columbia Body has produced an average of 17 trailers that do not require an exemption per year over the last three years.
Columbia Body states that recently, many of its gravity feed dump body competitors have gone bankrupt, leading purchasers to request the trailers from Columbia Body. Given the recent requests, Columbia Body seeks to ensure it is able to fill any potential orders. If the exemption were granted, Columbia Body projects that it would sell no more than 70 of the exempted trailers per year. Columbia Body states that the trailers in question are designed specifically for use with paving machines. Without an exemption, Columbia Body states it will suffer substantial economic hardship, projecting it will have to lay off seven or eight of its 40 employees starting in 2016.
In its application, Columbia Body provides specific financial information from the last three years. In 2012, Columbia Body posted a net loss of $108,000, followed by a $215,000 loss in 2013. In 2014, it posted a net profit of $302,000. If an exemption is not granted, Columbia Body projects it will post a $169,000 net profit for 2016, in comparison to $1 million net profit if an exemption is granted.
Columbia Body states that it has put forth a good faith effort to comply with FMVSS No. 224, however, is not possible for the company to produce a trailer at a reasonable price and with the utility its customers require for paving. Specifically, the rear end of the type of trailer in question interfaces with the front end of an asphalt paving machine, dumping hot asphalt into the paving machine's receiver. To establish this connection, the paving machine hooks to the rear wheels of the dump trailer. In order to prevent asphalt from spilling out while being transferred from the dump trailer to the paving machine, the paving machine fits 16 to 18 inches beneath the bottom of the dump trailer. The interaction between the dump trailer and paving machine occurs in the space where an underride guard would otherwise reside.
Columbia Body states that it has looked into possible solutions to this problem, including $50,000 in research in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate solutions to comply with FMVSS No. 224. One solution included adding removable underride guards. Columbia Body states, however, that “[e]ven if we could install a removable underride guard it will put equipment operators in an unsafe situation installing and removing the guard.” The petitioner states that the area where a removable underride guard would be installed is often covered in asphalt buildup. Additionally, Columbia Body believes that the cleaning, maintenance, and heavy impacts on the underride guard and the area immediately around it when contacting the paving machine would affect the structural integrity of the underride guard.
Another solution Columbia Body states it looked into involved constructing a sub-frame “with the ability to slide the dump body forward when in transit and slide it to the rear to provide the proper over hang [sic] when paving.” Columbia Body states that although this design is possible, conversations with prospective customers indicate the design “would not be acceptable” because of the added cost and weight associated with building such a structure.
Columbia Body states that so long as the paving industry continues to use the same method of paving roads, it remains a physical impossibility to manufacture this type of trailer and comply with FMVSS No. 224.
In support of its petition for exemption, Columbia Body notes that gravity feed dump trailers have limited highway exposure due to their function. Specifically, the trailers themselves are on the road for short periods of time. “Asphalt batch plants are typically set close to the paving activity to limit time traveling between the two paving activities.” Additionally, the petitioner states that in many instances, these paving machines are often performing their transport tasks away from the driving public in restricted access construction areas.
Finally, Columbia Body believes its ability to obtain an exemption is in the public interest. Columbia Body has informed NHTSA that customers requesting its gravity feed dump trailers are doing so in order to pave local roadways. Many purchasers are local municipalities, or companies that support local municipalities in creating and maintaining roads for the traveling public. Therefore, the petitioner believes supplying gravity feed dump trailers is in the public interest.
On December 17, 2015, NHTSA sought comment on Columbia Body's petition by publishing a notice of receipt in the
Columbia Body petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224 under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3), and in accordance with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 555.6. NHTSA may grant such a petition if it finds that compliance with the standard would
First, based on the detailed financial documentation Columbia Body has provided the agency, NHTSA believes Columbia Body would suffer substantial economic hardship without an exemption for its dump body trailers. Columbia Body posted a cumulative net loss over the last three years. Looking forward, Columbia Body would have to lay off seven to eight of its 40 employees in 2016.
Second, Columbia Body has demonstrated that it has made good faith efforts to comply with FMVSS No. 224. The dump body trailers subject to this petition are designed to attach to a paving machine that secures to the rear end of the dump body trailer. When attached to the dump body trailer, the paving machine hooks to the rear wheels of the trailer and tucks underneath the rear end of the dump body trailer. This interaction between the dump body trailer and a paving machine thwarts the installation of an underride guard. Despite the known design challenges, Columbia Body invested a significant amount of time and money investigating a way to comply with FMVSS No. 224 while maintaining the dump body trailer's paving utility. It developed potential solutions to the compliance challenges, and invested in a finite element analysis of the situation. Further, Columbia Body discussed the resulting potentially compliant design with prospective paving customers, who responded that an increase in cost and loss of payload capability were not acceptable for their business needs. From its research, Columbia Body reasonably concluded that it could not produce its dump body trailers with compliant guards unless paving machines are modified to no longer hook to the rear wheels of the dump body trailer. Such redesign of paving machines was not practical.
In the 2004 final rule amending FMVSS No. 224, NHTSA stated that “[i]n certain limited circumstances, the agency [will grant] temporary exemption to gravity feed dump trailer manufacturers based, in part, on impracticability of compliance.”
Third, NHTSA believes it is consistent with the public interest to grant Columbia Body this exemption. The overhang required by these trailers, while not exclusive to paving applications, is specifically manufactured to attach to a paving machine. These trailers serve as a tool for paving asphalt surfaces, most commonly, public roads; they are needed for that public function. Given the few remaining companies that produce dump trailers for paving, we believe that the exemption would result in more dump trailers being available for paving and other purposes, which would facilitate construction projects. Further, because these trailers are used primarily in road construction applications, their exposure to the traveling public is reduced. In many instances, these trailers are traveling in restricted area construction zones or with a paving machine attached to the rear end.
Moreover, the impact on safety by this exemption is further limited by the fact that relatively few vehicles would be affected. The number of exempted trailers allowed under this exemption is tailored to Columbia Body's projected production over the next three years, meaning that a maximum of only 210 trailers in total will be exempted.
NHTSA also considered the impacts of not granting the exemption. Columbia Body states that the failure to receive an exemption could cause it to lay off seven to eight of its 40 employees starting in 2016. Given the practicability problems the petitioner faces in meeting FMVSS No. 224 and the efforts made to comply, the negligible safety impacts of an exemption, and the increased availability of dump trailers as a result of an exemption, we do not believe that the potential job losses would be warranted. Taking all of these things into consideration, NHTSA believes this exemption is in the public interest.
Based on the exemption requirements and the information before the agency, NHTSA is issuing a temporary exemption to Columbia Body from FMVSS No. 224 for a period of three years for the dump body trailers it manufactures for paving applications.
Columbia Body is granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 16-01, from FMVSS No. 224.
49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision to an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning a revision to its information collection titled, “Domestic First Lien Residential Mortgage Data.”
You should submit written comments by: April 6, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0331, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is requesting OMB approval for the following information collection:
Comprehensive mortgage data is vital to assessing and monitoring credit quality and loss mitigation activities in the residential mortgage market and the federal banking system. This data is important and necessary to support supervisory activities to ensure the safety and soundness of the federal banking system.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Regulatory Improvement Act of 2010 requires the OCC to collect this mortgage data. 12 U.S.C. 1715z-25.
This data collection is being revised to include aggregate values to be calculated from data that is currently reported in loan-level format. These aggregate values will be industry standard measures of portfolio performance, including but not limited to: Outstanding loan count and unpaid principal balance; delinquency and liquidation ratios; and the number of loss mitigation actions completed. Aggregate values generally will be reported at the total portfolio and state level, with some values also reported by portfolio segments including, but not limited to: Borrower credit class and type and execution date of loss mitigation action.
The reported data items will still be calculated from loan-level data that includes: Bankruptcy or foreclosure status; and other detailed loan information. Banks would not be required to report this data to the OCC monthly, but would be required to provide it upon OCC's request.
The OCC published notice of this collection for 60 days of comment on November 16, 2015, 80 FR 70880. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard revises its Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology, adjusts annual pilotage rates based on the new methodology, and authorizes a temporary surcharge to hire additional pilots and to pay for necessary training for new and current pilots. Rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes were last revised in February 2015 and by law must be reviewed annually, with any adjustments to take effect by March 1 of the year for which new rates are established. The Coast Guard intends for the methodology changes to be understandable and transparent, and to encourage investment in pilots, infrastructure, and training while helping ensure safe, efficient, and reliable service on the Great Lakes. Without the updates to this methodology and enforcement of these rates, the Coast Guard believes the pilot associations will not be able to recruit experienced mariners, retain current pilots, or maintain and upgrade association infrastructure. Without sufficient registered pilots, current law will prevent international vessels from transiting the Great Lakes. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship (environmental protection) missions by promoting safe shipping on the Great Lakes.
This final rule is effective April 6, 2016.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble, are available at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
This rulemaking will change the methodology by which the Coast Guard sets base rates for U.S. Great Lakes registered pilotage service, set rates according to the new methodology, and impose a temporary surcharge to offset the costs of hiring and training new pilots. The Great Lakes pilotage statutes in 46 U.S.C. chapter 93 provide the legal basis for this rulemaking. The new effective date better aligns with the opening of the shipping season in early spring than the previous implementation date in August, which was based on the effective date of compensation changes in a benchmark union contract, which is no longer available to the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is revising the current methodology in place since 1995 for two reasons. First, for at least 15 years both pilots and industry have identified certain methodology issues that perpetuate inaccuracy in the ratemaking calculations. The pilots asserted these inaccuracies have led to revenue shortfalls that impede their ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. They said these shortfalls are the primary reason that the associations could not provide sufficient pilot compensation to attract, hire, and retain qualified pilots. Furthermore, due to the revenue shortfalls, the associations lacked funding needed to maintain and update their infrastructure and provide adequate rest for pilots during the shipping season. Industry has agreed that there is a shortage of qualified pilots and said that the decay of association infrastructure jeopardized the pilots' ability to ensure vessel safety and provide efficient, reliable service. We believe the current methodology fails to consider the totality of pilot time necessary to perform a given pilotage assignment, which often includes long transits to and from the vessel, resulting in low pilot compensation and overloaded work assignments.
Second, the 1995 methodology used a detailed breakdown of union compensation for merchant marine masters and mates as the benchmark for setting registered pilotage rates. Only one union's contract had ever been available to the Coast Guard for the purpose of setting pilotage rates. That union now regards many of the specific compensation details of its contract as proprietary information. As such, the union will no longer provide the entire contract to the Coast Guard and thus, the Coast Guard can no longer make public a transparent source as the basis for its annual target compensation projections. Due to the methodology issues cited by pilots and industry as well as the lack of availability of reliable and transparent union contracts for benchmark setting purposes, we are establishing a new standard using publicly available information to set the benchmark compensation used in each ratemaking.
Our new methodology sets pilotage rates for the 2016 shipping season only. We will review and adjust rates each subsequent year. We are also amending the regulations to provide for future multi-year rates that would apply for five years unless an interim adjustment is necessary. We would set base rates in a full ratemaking, and review those rates each year to make sure they continue to promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. If the base rate previously set is not satisfactory for that upcoming year, we would either adjust it or open a new full ratemaking. By law, a full ratemaking must be completed at least once every five years.
In 2014, the Coast Guard's Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC)
In Part IV of this final rule, we describe our new methodology which is consistent with the methodology we proposed in the NPRM. It follows a series of steps that are structured similarly to the steps found in the 1995 methodology. Step 1 reviews and recognizes each association's audited expenses. Step 2 projects each association's future operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or deflation. Step 3 projects the number of pilots required to meet each district's peak pilotage demand, with consideration given to the
This final rule makes several changes from our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). First, the NPRM proposed splitting a particularly long pilotage assignment on the St. Lawrence River into two more manageable segments by creating a new pilot change point. At the request of both pilots and industry, we are not making this change in this final rule. Instead, we will defer any action until we can further assess where the new change point can best be located, and until pilot staffing can be increased to handle the larger number of assignments that shorter pilot transits will cause. Second, in response to public comments, we increased our projection for 2016 target pilot compensation, reduced our pilotage association revenue projection for 2016 (based on our review of 2014 revenue audits and 2015 vessel traffic data), and increased the number of pilots we expect to be available for service in 2016. Third, in response to public comments we increased from 5 to 9 the number of shipping seasons included in our multi-year historical vessel traffic calculations, which we use to estimate future traffic.
In Part V of this preamble, the Coast Guard uses the new methodology to calculate base rates for the 2016 shipping season, as follows:
Step 1 of the new methodology accepts our independent accountant's final findings on each association's 2013 expenses.
Step 2 projects 2016 operating expenses and adjusts them for inflation, using actual inflation data for 2014 and 2015 and the Federal Reserve target inflation rate as a proxy for actual 2016 inflation.
Step 3 finds that, based on figures from the 2007-2015 shipping seasons, 54 pilots are required to fulfill pilotage demand, up from the 36 pilots we authorized for 2015. Based on association projections, we expect 37 pilots to be available in 2016, 48 at the beginning of 2017, and the balance to be added later in 2017.
Step 4 sets each pilot's target compensation at $326,114, with a total target compensation of $12,066,225 for the 37 pilots. We set these targets after identifying 2013 Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (GLPA) compensation, with adjustments for currency exchange and inflation, as the best benchmark for our 2016 rates.
Steps 5 and 6 calculate each association's return on investment and needed revenue.
Step 7 calculates initial base rates.
Finally, Step 8 affirms the Step 7 rates without adjustment, but also authorizes a temporary surcharge totaling $1,650,000, to cover the anticipated costs of hiring additional pilots and necessary training for new and current pilots.
This rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866. It affects 36 U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 3 pilot associations, and the owners and operators of an average of 126 vessels that transit the Great Lakes on an average 396 visits to various ports annually. We estimate that the new rates will result in shippers paying pilot associations $1,865,025, or roughly 12 percent more in 2016 than we estimate they did in 2015. We estimate that the authorized temporary surcharge will add $1,650,000 in costs, for a total 2016 cost increase of $3,515,025 over 2015. Because we must review and if necessary adjust rates each year, we analyze these as single year costs and do not annualize them over 10 years. This rule does not affect the Coast Guard's budget or increase Federal spending. We summarize our regulatory analyses in Part VII.
The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”),
The purpose of this rule is to change our annual Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology, set new rates using that methodology, and authorize a temporary hiring and training surcharge.
We published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rulemaking on September 10, 2015, and in response to a request we extended the NPRM's initial 60-day comment period by 30 days.
This rule directly affects the pilots, their three pilotage associations, and the owners and operators of Great Lakes vessels engaged in foreign trade on U.S. Great Lakes waters. It does not affect U.S. and Canadian “lakers,” which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes.
We divide the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway (“the Great Lakes system,” or “the system”) into three pilotage districts, each containing two or three areas. We certify a private association to operate a pool of pilots in each district. We set rates that each association may charge vessel owners and operators, but we do not control the actual compensation each pilot receives. The actual compensation is a function of vessel traffic in the system and is determined by each association, which has its own business structure and compensation system.
District One comprises areas 1 and 2, the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. District Two comprises areas 4 and 5, the U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. District Three comprises areas 6, 7, and 8, the U.S. waters of the St. Mary's River, Sault Ste. Marie Locks, and Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior. Because only Canadian pilots serve area 3, Canada's Welland Canal, we do not set rates for that area. Pursuant to the Act, the President has designated Areas 1, 5, and 7 as waters in which a vessel must fully engage a pilot to navigate the vessel at all times. The President left Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 undesignated. In undesignated waters the Act requires only that a vessel have a pilot “on board and available to direct the navigation of the vessel at the discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master.”
The Act requires us to review rates and adjust them, if necessary, by March 1 of each year, employing a “full ratemaking . . . at least once every 5 years,” and an annual review and adjustment in the intervening years.
We adopt the methodology changes proposed in the NPRM, and a thorough discussion of the methodology is available in that document.
First, for at least 15 years both pilots and industry have identified certain methodology issues that, they assert, perpetuate systemic inaccuracies in the ratemaking calculations. The pilots say these inaccuracies led to annual revenue shortfalls that impede their ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. Pilotage associations believed those distortions resulted in low rates. They also believed that actual association revenue chronically fell short of the revenue targets that, under the 1995 methodology, we projected based on anecdotal industry information. The Director of Great Lakes Pilotage has reviewed his data for 2005 through 2014 and estimates that, over this period, the three pilotage associations cumulatively fell short of revenue projections by $20 million. As a result, the pilotage associations could not provide sufficient compensation to attract and retain qualified pilots, leading to pilot shortages and associated traffic delays. In turn, these shortages meant that each pilot had to carry an excessive workload and forego needed rest and training.
The pilotage associations also said the revenue shortfalls left them unable to maintain and update association infrastructure or provide the essential training and professional development opportunities recommended by the American Pilots Association (APA). For their part, industry commenters believed that pilot shortages jeopardized the safety of their vessels, and meant that the pilots could not provide efficient or reliable service, particularly at the beginning and end of shipping seasons when peak vessel traffic and frequent bad weather often delay vessel movement.
Second, the 1995 methodology used a detailed breakdown of union compensation for merchant marine masters and mates, as the benchmark for setting registered pilotage rates. Only one union's contract has ever been available to the Coast Guard for this purpose. That union now regards many of the specific compensation details of its contract as proprietary information. The union will not provide the entire contract to the Coast Guard and thus, the Coast Guard cannot use the existing methodology and make public a transparent source for our target pilot compensation figure. Therefore, we are adopting a new method for determining which publicly available compensation information best serves as a benchmark for this year's target compensation. That benchmark could change from one ratemaking to the next, as circumstances change.
We built the new methodology around a set of recommendations GLPAC made at its public meetings in July 2014.
The new rates apply only for the 2016 shipping season. We will review and adjust rates as appropriate in the subsequent years. This will allow all stakeholders to gain familiarity with the new methodology and evaluate its ability to set more accurate rates. However, we are amending the regulations to authorize multi-year rates that would apply for five years. We would set base rates in a full ratemaking, and review those rates each year to make sure they continue to promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. If they do not do so satisfactorily, we would either adjust them or open a new full ratemaking. Multi-year rates allow both pilots and industry to make longer range financial plans.
We specify that billing under § 401.420 precludes any additional pilotage charge for the time in question. We discard § 401.428's old per diem allowance for a pilot who is picked up or discharged at a point other than a designated change point. Instead, if the pilot is kept aboard for the convenience of or at the request of the ship, the pilot's association can bill the vessel at hourly rates for the extra time involved, plus reasonable travel costs. If the pilot is kept aboard for circumstances outside of the ship's control, for example because a pilot boat is out of service, the association can bill the vessel only for reasonable travel costs. Both sections define “reasonable travel costs” as covering travel to and from the pilot's base.
Finally, these sections allow pilotage associations to charge for delays caused by weather, traffic and ice in the colder and busier months at the beginning and end of shipping seasons. All these amendments are the same as those we proposed in the NPRM.
In the discussion that follows, we explain how the new methodology replaces each Step of the 1995 methodology. Our calculations for 2016 rates, using the new methodology, appear in Part VI of this preamble.
This rule sets base rates for 2016, using pilot association expense data from 2013, the last full year for which reported and audited financial information is available. Under old Step 1.C, we would have applied a cost change factor for only the next year, 2014, and would have ignored the inflation that took place in 2015 and 2016. In 2014, GLPAC recommended that we take the subsequent years into account,
If the result of our demand calculation is a fractional number, we will round it up or down, as seems most reasonable, to the next whole pilot.
In addition to projecting the number of pilots needed, we will also project the number of pilots we expect to be actually working full-time and fully compensated during the first shipping season of the new base period. This becomes an important factor in the next section.
First, instead of different target figures for undesignated and designated waters, we will set a single figure for each district. Second, instead of using union contracts as our compensation benchmark, we will use the most appropriate reliable benchmark that is available to the public. Third, instead of basing target compensation on each district's pilot needs, we will base them on the number of pilots we expect to be available for full-time and fully-compensated work in the upcoming season, since actual pilotage availability may be lower than needed, as is the case under the current methodology.
In the following discussion, in general the numbers used to refer to specific commenters are keyed to their docket numbers. Many late comments were docketed as a single entry, so those comments are labeled with the letter codes AA through AW (those codes appear next to each separate comment in the single docketed entry). So, commenter 4's submission is docketed as USCG-2015-0497-0004. We received submissions from 75 commenters on the NPRM, from the individuals and groups (or their associations or representatives) shown in Figure 2. In addition, we received emails from two shipping agents and a shipper, all requesting clarification (which we supplied by email) as to how rates would be charged under the new regulations, and a request on behalf of shipping agents for an extension of the comment period, which we granted.
Of the 75 comments we received, 14, or almost one-fifth, of the comments were submitted after the published date for closing the comment period, December 9, 2015.
Our responses to some of the comments indicate that the action we are taking this year is subject to possible future modification. For example, using Canadian Great Lakes pilot compensation, suitably adjusted to recognize differences in the benefits the U.S. and Canadian systems provide is considered as the benchmark for setting our own target compensation. In each of those cases, we invite the public to submit formal comments on next year's NPRM, and the Director of Great Lakes Pilotage will accept comments and data informally submitted at any time (see
The following discussion treats, in alphabetical order, these major topics raised by the comments, and concludes with a discussion of miscellaneous comments.
As we stated in the NPRM, GLPA pilots provide service that is almost identical to the service provided by U.S. Great Lakes pilots. With the exception of Area 3, the GLPA provides pilotage service in the same waters as U.S. pilots do; in fact, whether a GLPA or U.S. pilot is assigned to a vessel is a matter of chance. We rejected the Laurentian pilots as not being a comparable benchmark because the Laurentian pilots work exclusively in designated waters. Consequently, we do not think it is accurate to say that “Canadian” pilots perform a higher percentage of their work on designated waters. The difference between the amount of work performed in designated waters by U.S. pilots and GLPA pilots is minimal.
Moreover, we do not agree with the argument that the noted disparities between work done by Canadian and U.S. pilots warrant comparing U.S. compensation to a different system, such as the BLS data suggested by the ports and shippers association. As we stated in the NPRM, BLS data for masters, mates, and pilots cover officers whose duties and responsibilities are substantially different from those of a U.S. Great Lakes pilot. Unlike a Great Lakes pilot, most officers covered by the BLS data are not directly responsible for the safe navigation of vessels of any tonnage through designated waters. Further, the BLS data is skewed downward by the higher number of lower wage mates, who do not hold the same licenses as masters and pilots. Between U.S. and Canadian pilots, however, the impact on overall pilotage services is the same wherever a pilot happens to be. If a pilot is assigned to undesignated waters, the pilot is still “at work” or “on assignment” and therefore is unavailable for assignment to designated waters, and the pilot helps to ensure the safe navigation of the vessel regardless of the circumstances or waters navigated. Finally, a Canadian pilot's compensation is in no way dependent on the proportion of the pilot's assignments in designated or undesignated waters. Canadian pilots earn an annual salary that is affected neither by that proportion, nor, indeed, by varying traffic demand. Also, all U.S. registered pilots are qualified to provide service in both designated and undesignated waters within each pilotage district. Therefore, we do not think the distinction between assignments in designated or undesignated waters should have any bearing on a pilot's compensation.
A national pilot association said, in comment 38, that for too long the Coast Guard set pilot rates too low, in an effort only to keep pilotage costs as low as possible. The association generally welcomed our proposals but found that the proposed adjustment of 10 percent to the Canadian benchmark insufficiently accounts for differences between the two nations' compensation systems, and that it is skewed because the Canadian compensation data include compensation for both fully qualified and apprentice pilots. It provided data in support of a benchmark adjustment of almost 37 percent, not 10 percent. The group of pilotage association presidents, in comment 52, supported these comments and also recommended using other U.S. pilots' compensation figures, which are generally significantly higher, as the benchmark.
We appreciate the data the association reported in support of the almost 37 percent benchmark adjustment it suggested, but we do not find it persuasive. The commenter admits that determining this differential is subjective and they primarily base this value on the cost of living difference between Detroit, MI and Windsor, ON, which are not necessarily indicative of the regional economy. We do not think the 15 percent COLA differentiator between Detroit, MI and Windsor, ON is relevant—a single comparison point should not be utilized to establish the regional comparison. Also, the U.S. cost of the Masters, Mates, and Pilots Membership Health Plan is only a single option of healthcare and benefit packages that are also not necessarily indicative of the regional economy.
We will re-evaluate the association's data before we propose new rates for 2017, at which time the public will be able to comment on their validity and whether the impact of so large an adjustment would require a phase-in, in the interest of avoiding too large a one-year rate increase. We find that our new target compensation for 2016 is fair and justifiable.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, responded to our question asking if the 10 percent adjustment to Canadian Great Lakes pilotage data is appropriate. The coalition said it is not, and that it abuses our discretion, because it ignores the facts that Canadian pilots perform more work in designated waters than U.S. pilots do, and that they are government employees. The coalition doubted that the Canadian data require adjustment once “comparability adjustments are rationally applied.” They also said it is “legally and logically defective” to set rates by “working backward” from individual pilot compensation figures to set future target compensation. Instead, they said we should simply cover reasonable pilotage costs, including the costs of providing reasonable pilot compensation.
The same coalition, in comment 53, responded to our question asking if Canadian Great Lakes pilot compensation provides the best benchmark for U.S. rates, and if there is a better benchmark. They said that the systemic differences between the Canadian and U.S. systems make the Canadian compensation an unreliable benchmark, and that, instead, we should continue basing our target compensation on the compensation of first mates on U.S.-flagged Great Lakes vessels. They said the union contract information we previously used is still available, as the union's late comment on the 2014 rulemaking showed, and as the court in our recent litigation said we should have used. They also suggested we could use data from the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, said we should eliminate the Director's ability to make reasonable and necessary discretionary adjustments to initially-calculated rates, for supportable circumstances such as carrying out pilotage agreements between the U.S. and Canada. The coalition said this discretion is open to abuse and that the exercise of this discretion in the past has been widely criticized by stakeholders. The coalition also said that, if we retain the discretionary tool, we should expressly limit its use to circumstances in which we fully take into account the adjustment's economic impact and the public interest.
No matter how well crafted a permanent rate setting methodology may be, it is bound to produce inequities when it cannot accommodate unforeseeable circumstances. We think it is essential for the methodology to include a tool that provides the ability to respond to those circumstances. We note that any proposed adjustment is fully made public in that year's NPRM, and we will carefully consider any public comments raising concerns as to a proposed adjustment's necessity and reasonableness.
We also note that we are required, by various statutes and Executive Orders, to consider the economic impact of any rulemaking, and statutorily required to consider the public interest as well as the costs of providing the services in setting rates. Therefore, although we agree with the coalition that our discretion should be exercised subject to these controls, we do not think additional regulatory language is necessary at this time.
The association presidents, as a group in their comment 52, said the Director enjoys overly broad discretion to adjust compensation benchmarks, and that a good standard for the exercise of that discretion would be “comparable compensation for comparable work in a comparable community.”
One association president in comment 56 said proposed § 404.108 is unclear as to how agreements with Canada could have any impact in adjusting U.S. rates, when despite comparable language over the past two decades, no such agreement has ever led to an adjustment.
The purpose of making a rule “effective” by March 1, but deferring rate implementation until August 1, was to give all parties clear and settled information, at the beginning of the shipping season, on a significant cost factor that would change as the season progressed. We no longer see any reason to defer rate implementation until August and believe an implementation date at the beginning of the shipping season is reasonable under the new methodology. This ensures that the new rates can be charged from the beginning of the shipping season, which usually occurs in late March.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, responded to our question as to when new rates should be implemented; they said they should have 90 days in accordance with common marine industry contract requirements.
A pilot said in comment 55B that compensation for delay and detention should be paid not only when the event is for the vessel's convenience, but for any event that is not caused by the pilot.
Pilot 55B “applaud[ed]” our recognition that compensation data should be adjusted for inflation.
With respect to the “compensation for interruption” provisions of proposed § 401.420(c), the president of an association in comment 56 asked what constitutes a traffic interruption, and what difference it makes whether such an interruption occurs during May through November or at other times.
A pilot service provider in comment 43 pointed out that we “lost a critical tool in arriving at an equitable payscale” when benchmark union contracts became unavailable for the Coast Guard's use in setting rates. The commenter “commend[ed]” our “pro-active work” in devising a new procedure for ensuring fairer pilot compensation.
The national pilot association in comment 49 expressed support for our proposals because they responsibly meet our obligation to “encourage investment in pilots, infrastructure, and training while helping to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable” pilotage service.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment AW, said the Coast Guard may have been overly ambitious in proposing both the methodology changes
The president of a pilot association in comment 59 said our methodology and rates were fair and should be adopted.
The presidents of the pilot associations, as a group and in their comment 62, pointed out that the Coast Guard has full discretion to set pilotage rates, and that the Coast Guard must ensure first and foremost that the rates we set promote the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the regulated entities' operations. They said that the shippers coalition was mistaken in its assertion that we failed to give sufficient attention to their “public interest.” The presidents pointed out that our statutory mandate is to consider, without limitation, the “public interest,” and shared our interpretation of that interest as extending to that of every American or any foreign person who might be affected by our ratemakings. The presidents said that, had Congress intended to limit the “public interest” to the interest of persons directly affected by the Great Lakes system, it knew how to do so by speaking in plain terms.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment AW, said that industry's interests are “congruent” with those of the pilots, that our rates should fairly compensate the pilots without imposing unreasonable costs that can harm the viability of Great Lakes shipping, and that our proposals do not meet these goals.
A pilot in comment 55B and a president of a pilot association in comment 54 said that the hourly compensation standard should recognize that not all hours are billable.
A pilot service provider in comment 43 cited studies
The national pilot association in comment 49 noted that shipping agents for foreign vessel operators have long demanded Coast Guard action to address the “untenable situation” in which pilot shortages and aging infrastructure can lead to expensive vessel movement delays. The association said that only in 2015 did the Coast Guard begin rectifying the severe pilot association revenue shortfall over the past decade, and commended the Coast Guard for continuing this rectification with our proposals for 2016. A pilot service provider in comment AN made similar comments.
The president of a pilot association in comment 54 said his district will have significant unforeseen dispatch costs in 2016.
A U.S. pilot from a different system in comment AH said that pilots in his association earn over $459,000 a year and also receive medical and pension benefits, and that compensation for Great Lakes pilots contributes to hiring and retention difficulty.
The national pilot association in comment 38 said our proposed rates do not adequately cover the cost of adding new pilots, over the potential 5-year lifespan of the new rates.
Pilots in comments 29, 44, 45, 46, and AV, as well as a pilot service provider in comment AK and a port commenter in comment AM, all said that low pay and high workload are principal causes of pilot hiring and retention problems. In addition, a pilot in comment 29 compared U.S. Great Lakes pilot compensation and working conditions unfavorably to those available to their Canadian counterparts, and said our proposals would “go a long way” toward easing hiring and retention problems, improving pilot training, and helping shore up pilotage association infrastructure. A pilot in comment 57 said that a well-compensated pilot will not want to leave his position, and that a well-compensated pilot in another stable environment will not want to take a position in the unstable Great Lakes pilotage system. A pilot in comment 58 said that in the past, target pilot compensation has been set “abysmal[ly]” and in no way has kept up with compensation for other pilots or other mariners. A pilot in comment 61 said that the inability of the pilotage associations to hire and retain qualified pilots is putting the safety, efficiency, and reliability of pilotage service at significant risk, and said industry should understand this as well as the pilots do. He said the pilots had long warned industry that pilot shortages would inevitably result in the sort of delays that industry had to endure at the beginning of the difficult 2014 shipping season. A pilot in comment AA said that in 2010 he withdrew his application to become a Great Lakes pilot because the risk was not worth it, and that he knows several colleagues who did not apply, for the same reason. He said that if industry is not willing to pay increased rates they may lose pilotage service altogether. Pilots in comments 55A and 55C made similar comments. A pilot association president in comment AC said his association has difficulty hiring replacements for several pilots who have left the system or retired, or who plan to do so in the near future; similar comments came from pilots in comments 55D, AE, and AV. President AC also said that pilotage costs are a small fraction of overall shipping costs in the Great Lakes. A pilot in comment AL said he retired from the system because of low compensation and lack of time off, and withdrew his application for another opening when it became clear those conditions had not improved. A pilot in comment AO said he never would have become a Great Lakes pilot had he foreseen the low compensation and long hours involved, and that as a hiring agent found that these issues kept many highly qualified mariners from signing on as pilots. A pilot in comment AP said 10 pilots in his association took early retirement to escape the low compensation and long hours their positions entailed. A pilot in comment AQ said his job as a pilot was a “great fit” but that he resigned because of low pay and long hours. Pilots in comments AS and AT welcomed the surcharge that the NPRM proposed to help defray pilot association hiring and training costs.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, said that our analysis of pilot attraction and retention issues is not founded on tested data, and that we should explore alternative ways to attract and retain good pilots, such as up-front apprentice bonuses and living standard supports. The coalition said we should look into each departed recruit's or pilot's reasons for leaving the system. In comment AW, the same coalition said that we have produced no data establishing that there are difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified pilots, or that there is a relationship between those difficulties and low pilotage rates. The coalition said we should produce enough data to convince the public that there is a problem, that it is caused by low rates, and that it is not affected by other unrelated factors.
Industry considers pilot understaffing directly responsible for vessel traffic delays. Figure 4 shows our data for delay hours overall and by district between 2007 and 2015. This data is pulled from the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System, an online database shared by USCG and the Canadian GLPA, as well as the pilot associations.
Figure 5 shows how much these delays cost, which we calculated by dividing the delay hours shown in Figure 4 by 24 hours and multiplying the result by the average daily vessel operating costs, excluding the cost of pilotage during delays.
Figure 6 shows that since 2007, the number of available pilots has decreased 22 percent, while delay hours have increased 45 percent. Over this period, delays increased by 2,636 hours, or 329 hours per year, per pilot loss. Other factors contribute to delays, but clearly pilot shortfalls are one important factor.
Pilot associations say they want to reach full staffing, but cannot do so because of chronic pilot attraction and retention difficulties. We are open to any reasonable proposals for mitigating those difficulties, but the remedies suggested by the coalition may not work and could take longer than the system can sustain in the face of more pilot departures and the inability to replace those pilots. We doubt that the coalition's suggestions would be effectual, given the career-long prospects a recruit or new pilot faces for lower compensation than their counterparts in Canada side or in other U.S. ports. The pilots have emphasized these issues repeatedly at pilotage summits and GLPAC meetings, and we are not aware of evidence that the pilots' emphasis is misplaced. Our preceding figures suggest that increased pilot rates are the best and quickest way to attract and retain more qualified pilots.
Consolidation of the three districts into one continues to be an option we consider. However, it should be noted that the three-district model predates the Coast Guard's assumption of the system's control almost 50 years ago, and GLPAC's authorizing statute specifies that three of GLPAC's seven members must represent the presidents of the three pilotage districts, which in our view implies that each district will have its own association.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, said the NPRM's proposal that pilot numbers be set high enough to cover peak traffic periods should be revised so that peak demand is used only at the beginning and end of a shipping season, when delays due to pilot shortages are most common, and should rely on alternative tools, such as the use of contract part-time pilots, during the non-peak periods.
We considered using contract or semi-retired pilots as an alternative way to handle traffic peaks. We do not think that is a viable alternative because those pilots are unlikely to possess current and thorough knowledge of local waters. We consider such knowledge essential for safe piloting, especially in the bad weather conditions often experienced during peak periods. This kind of specialized knowledge takes up to 48 months to acquire and cannot be summoned at short notice to address temporary traffic peaks. It is true that other pilotage systems outside the Great Lakes sometimes use part-time or contract pilots, but those systems cover smaller areas in which those pilots more easily can maintain the necessary knowledge without impacting safety. The coalition did not propose other alternatives for our consideration and we have not identified such alternatives. However, we invite the public's input on any alternatives that exist, and would carefully consider using those alternatives in future ratemakings.
The president of a pilot association in comment 56 criticized our proposed basis for target pilot compensation in § 404.104, by which compensation would be set according to the number of pilots actually on hand, instead of the number of pilots needed. He said this would be unfair to the existing pilots, each of whom has to work harder until the association is fully staffed.
The national pilots association in comment 49, supported by the president's group in comment 52, said that our proposed 46 CFR 404.2(b)(6) disallowance for legal fees associated with actions against the U.S. Government and its agents appeared to be in retaliation for the pilots' lawsuit against the Coast Guard for our 2014 ratemaking. The association said our proposal was contrary to past Coast Guard practice, which allowed those fees so long as there was no finding of bad faith on the part of the pilots. The president's group, in comment 52, said disallowing fees is an arbitrary and capricious departure from past Coast Guard practice and an illogical departure from customary practice in other industries. They said the disallowance may have been based on the mistaken assumption that the fees paid to their lawyers were for lobbying expenses.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, opposed our recognizing the pilot associations' cost of membership in the American Pilots Association (APA), because they did not think it necessary for safe, efficient, and reliable Great Lakes pilotage.
The president of an association in comment 54 said that each district's peak demand period is different from the others, and therefore, it makes sense to allow the recuperative rest periods between each district's double-pilotage seasons.
The president of an association in comment 56 said we should amend § 404.1 by specifying that, instead of ensuring fair compensation for trained and rested pilots, we would ensure a sufficient number of well-qualified and well-rested pilots to cover peak demand, and have 10 days' recuperative rest each month during non-peak months. He also asked us to clarify how our proposal would deal with the possibility that such rest could be modified to ensure continuous pilot availability.
We see potential merit in the suggestion that our ratemaking take weighting factors into account, and we take it under advisement. Given the high variability from year to year in the numbers and types of vessels requiring pilotage, we have never considered weighting factors in projecting revenue projections of the rate. We do not consider specific routes in the rulemaking, only the needed revenue for the pilot associations to provide safe, efficient and reliable service. Our comparison of needed revenue from year to year reflects the overall cost of the pilotage system; some routes may see higher increases than others depending on factors including weather, traffic, cargo, and destination.
We do not agree that pilot financial data are unreliable. The data provided in the docket readily allows comparisons between projected and actual revenues. Our independent accounting firm conducts extensive reviews of pilot association financial information, to enable us to determine the necessity and reasonableness of association expenses. We recently began auditing association revenues, and these audits validate association claims that they generate the target revenues set in previous ratemakings. We have also posted financial information (including information requested by the coalition) on our public Web site. We believe we have provided extensive evidence in support of our analysis of association expenses and revenues, and that we have fully explained how our new methodology and this year's rate increases support safe, efficient and reliable pilotage. We have also added analyses of the potential economic impact of the ratemaking to support our methodology and rate increases.
Finally, our responses to the comments we received on the NPRM demonstrate that we have considered safety needs, relevant costs, and the public interest.
Many of the shippers cited the adverse impact the proposed rate increases could have on their businesses or on the regional economy in general. One said that higher pilotage costs could decrease the attractiveness of Great Lakes shipping relative to other transportation modes, and that ultimately reduced shipping demand will result in lower pilotage revenues, forcing further rate increases and creating a cost spiral. Some of the shippers said that, as a regulator, the Coast Guard should protect the interests of the consumer from cost increases that are unaccompanied by system efficiencies and that threaten the health of the Great Lakes economy. The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, made similar statements and said that we erred in saying the proposed rates would not hurt small businesses, because we overlooked the ripple effect of rate increases on the small shippers and their suppliers who are indirectly affected by those increases.
In addition, the overall impact of an increase in pilotage costs should be small and have little effect on a shipper's transportation route and mode preferences. A 2011 study by Martin and Associates
We are required by statute to set rates with “consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the [pilotage] services.”
As to the impact of increases on small businesses, we acknowledge the coalition's concern, but the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires consideration only of the direct costs of a regulation on a small entity that is required to comply with the regulation.
Also, we think these comments overlook the adverse regional economic impact that lower pilotage rates could have. Lower rates lead to lower revenues, and as we have stated, we think chronic low revenues are responsible for the pilotage system problems that industry says leads to damaging vessel traffic delays. It is those delays that are most likely to weaken the competitiveness of the Great Lakes in the near future, and our rate increases are intended to forestall that impact.
More importantly, however, and as we previously noted, if we fail to implement this methodology and new rates, we believe the pilot associations will not be able to recruit experienced mariners and retain their registered pilots. Without registered pilots, current law would prohibit international vessels from transiting the Great Lakes.
A port commenter in comment 35 said pilotage costs now exceed a vessel's total operational costs, or the cost of loading and unloading vessels.
To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on the foreign vessels affected by the rate adjustment, we used 2012-2014 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Ship Arrival Notification System (SANS) and pilotage billing data from the Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System (GLPMS). A random sample of 50 arrivals was taken from SANS data. To estimate the impact of pilotage costs on the costs of an entire trip, we estimated the length of each one way trip. We used the vessel name and the date of the arrival to find the last port of call before entering the Great Lakes system. The date of the departure from this port was used as the start date of the trip. To find the end date of the trip we used GLPMS data to find all the pilotage charges associated with this vessel during this trip in the Great Lakes system. The end date of the one way trip was taken as the last pilotage charge before beginning the trip to exit the system. We estimated the total operating cost by multiplying the number of days for each by the 2015 average daily operating cost and added this to the total pilotage costs from GLPMS for each trip. The total pilotage charges for each trip were updated to the 2015 rates using the average rate increases in the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates 2012-2015 Annual Review and Adjustments final rules.
A port commenter in comment 42 said our proposed ratemaking methodology is “decoupled from market realities” and adds costs without adding productivity or accountability. The commenter said we should set rates to optimize the availability of “high quality pilots” with “minimal impact on vessel schedules and routes,” and with the lowest possible costs not directly related to pilotage. A pilot association president in comment 56 said that, in fact, pilotage associations are subject to market forces because those forces dictate the success of each association's efforts to attract and retain talent, and because the Coast Guard is required to set rates with consideration to the cost of pilotage service, which itself is subject to market forces.
The presidents' group, in comment 62, said that the “runaway cost”
In addition, foreign stakeholders and their representatives generally attend GLPAC meetings as members of the public, and are able to voice their concerns and opinions during those meetings which include discussion of recommendations on the future ratemakings.
Finally, because Great Lakes pilotage is regulated both by the U.S. and Canada, the Coast Guard's Director of Great Lakes Pilotage is in nearly daily contact with his Canadian counterpart, and together they meet regularly with pilots, port representatives, and U.S. and Canadian agents for foreign vessel owners and operators. This, plus the attendance and representation of Canadian stakeholders at GLPAC meetings, ensures that both the Coast Guard and Canadian officials are continually aware of the concerns and views of all pilotage stakeholders, and can coordinate a binational response, if necessary.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, said that our NPRM gave “undue weight” to the GLPAC recommendations on which the NPRM's proposals are based, because GLPAC is no longer representative of all stakeholders, particularly foreign shippers and shipping agents who are not directly represented on the committee, and is now a “pilot-dominated interest group.” A current GLPAC member AF, who represents port interests, denies this charge and stated he believes the charge is “offensive and wrong.”
Moreover, the statute creating GLPAC specifies that six of its seven members must be balanced between pilots on one side and ports, shippers, and vessel operators on the other, which we believe ensures that the pilots will have adequate, but not dominant, representation on the committee.
As we have already stated, although GLPAC does not include any foreign members, GLPAC's meetings are open to the public, including foreign citizens. As members of the public, Canadian stakeholders, the head of the Canadian Great Lakes pilot authority, members of the coalition, and their representatives all routinely attend and voice their concerns at those meetings.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, charged that the Coast Guard acted arbitrarily in proposing to exclude 2009 and 2014 traffic volume data from our 5-year average, because we viewed those years as “outliers” the inclusion of which would distort that average. The coalition pointed out that 2015 is on track to mirror 2014 traffic volume, and that therefore, 2014 should no longer be considered an outlier year. In comment AW, the coalition opposed identifying any seasons as outliers, for the purpose of projecting future traffic.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, responded to our question asking if there is an objective standard by which we can determine whether a particular shipping season should be considered an outlier and excluded from our multi-year historic average traffic level. They said there is no typical shipping season, that both 2014 (which we considered an outlier in the NPRM) and 2015 should be included, and that we should rely on industry projections to estimate future demand.
We disagree with the coalition's suggestion that we should rely, not on historical traffic data, but on industry projections. That was our practice for the past 20 years and we repeatedly found it unreliable. It led to significant overestimates of the next season's traffic, and consequently to revenue shortfalls and overworked pilots. Continued use of such projections would jeopardize the safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service that the Coast
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, responded to our question asking for other sources of traffic data for shipping seasons prior to 2009 to help identify outlier years. They said we should consult industry sources. A pilot association president in comment 56 also responded to this question, and said his association could provide its data for District Three.
A pilot in comment 55B welcomed the proposed use of a multi-year historical average to predict future traffic demand.
A national pilot association, in comment 38, also said that current 46 CFR 401.451's existing requirement for a minimum of 10 hours between a pilot's assignments should be revised upward to reflect the travel time that may be necessary for a pilot to reach home or another place where the pilot can sleep between assignments.
A national pilot association in comment 38 said we should add regulatory language to provide for surcharges between ratemakings, to cover unanticipated pilot association expenses.
A port commenter in comment 48 said the high cost of pilotage could be mitigated by eliminating pilotage requirements in large open portions of the Great Lakes or where improved navigational tools can offset the need for pilotage.
The national pilots association in comment 49 said we should specify that, in setting target pilot compensation, the Coast Guard will consider the need to attract and retain the most qualified persons to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage.
The presidents' group, in comment 52, supported the use of automatic annual rate adjustments between base years.
The ports and shippers coalition, in comment 53, said we arbitrarily departed from our past practice of not requiring a reserve allowance for unforeseeable future needs by proposing that our 2016 rates include a reserve allowance for each pilot association's unforeseeable future needs, which the coalition said is contrary to generally-accepted rate setting principles. The coalition said that, in the past, we recognized only those reasonable and necessary expenses that have already been incurred.
The coalition, in comment 53, said we should consider an alternative regulatory tool, negotiated rulemaking to set rates.
A pilot association president in comment 56 said our regulations should include a definitions section to provide discipline and transparency.
A pilot association president in comment 56 said we proposed setting future pilot needs, and setting target compensation based on the projected number of pilots, only for the first year of a multi-year ratemaking, but not for the out-years, and that we should also cover the out-years, lest associations be forced to cancel recuperative rest periods to keep up with growing demand. He suggested revising these projections during each annual rate review.
A pilot association president in comment 56 asked us to clarify whether proposed § 404.107(b) was intended to adjust rates only in his district's (District Three's) designated waters or in both designated and undesignated waters. He also supported our proposed harmonization of rates in all the
A pilot association president in comment 56 said that the proposed cancellation provisions of § 401.420(b) were ill-adapted to the large distances found in District Three, where a pilot might have to begin traveling to a pickup point long before the order for his services becomes final.
A pilot association president in comment 56 said, with respect to the proposed vessel trip delay and pilot detention language in § 401.420(c), that weather conditions in November often produce these delays, and that therefore, we should modify our proposed exception to the rule, from May through November, that vessels are responsible for compensating a pilot for weather-related delay or detention.
With respect to the “overcarriage” provisions of proposed § 401.428(a), a pilot association president in comment 56 said there is confusion between what we meant by “change points” in this section and what we meant by the term in proposed § 401.450. He interpreted the former provisions to relate only to one of the eight change points where vessels normally do not stop unless they are changing pilots, and that a pilot should be compensated whenever his overcarriage results from factors beyond his control.
A pilot association president in comment 56 said that the vast majority of harbor moves in District Three are short jobs that require extensive pilot travel, and that because these moves are compensated at the lower undesignated waters rate, there is no industry incentive to eliminate unnecessary moves. Therefore he favored compensating these assignments at the higher designated waters rate.
A port commenter in comment AB supported the new rates but said we need to maintain strict oversight to ensure that the rates are used largely to hire and train new pilots and to retain current pilots.
We proposed new rates and a temporary surcharge (for pilot hiring and training) for 2016. We reviewed the independent accountant's financial reports for each association's 2013 expenses and revenues. Those reports, which include pilot comments on draft versions and the accountant's response to those comments, appear in the docket.
We are setting new rates, applying our new ratemaking methodology as follows:
Next, we calculate the average cycle time associated with each pilot assignment, in each area. In the future, we intend to use Great Lakes Electronic Pilot Management System (GLPMS) data to track cycle time, but that data is not available for our current base period. Our best source for that base period's cycle time is the Bridge Hour Definition and Methodology Final Report prepared on our behalf in 2013.
We then determine the average peak late-season traffic demand over the base period, as shown in Figure 15. Figure 15 also shows the average number of pilots that would have been needed to meet the peak demand, and for comparison purposes shows the average number (39) of needed and authorized pilots for 2007-2015.
As shown in Figure 14, according to the 2013 report cycle time for pilots in designated waters is a little over 20 hours. This implies that, on average in late seasons over the base period, one pilot could move one vessel per day. However, to fully meet peak season demand, the pilot associations must be staffed to provide double pilotage, and Figure 15 reflects that doubling in the number of pilots needed in the designated waters of Areas 1, 5, and 7.
Except in extreme circumstances, double pilotage is not required in the open and undesignated waters of Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8, and Figure 15 shows no doubling in those areas. However, Figure 14 does show a 50 percent increase from the one pilot-one vessel standard in undesignated Areas 6 and 8, which are located in the large western Great Lakes. Areas 6 and 8 are not contiguous, but both flank the designated waters of Area 7. Travel times in Areas 6 and 8 are greater than they are in the undesignated waters of smaller Lakes Erie and Ontario, and on average a pilot needs approximately 1.5 days per vessel, not just 1, to move a vessel. Therefore, Figure 15 shows 7 pilots, not 5, in each of Areas 6 and 8. This number will ensure that the five ships shown as moving daily through Area 7 could be moved through the undesignated waters at the same rate.
Based on our Figure 15 numbers, and as shown in Figure 16, we find that 54 pilots are needed over the period for which 2016 base rates will be in effect, as opposed to the 36 currently authorized pilots shown in Figure 15. Figure 16 also shows that based on our best current information we project there will be only 37 fully working and fully compensated pilots (“working pilots”) in 2016. This decrease from our initial projections in the NPRM is based on feedback from the pilot associations. However, we have increased the number of applicants funded via surcharge significantly from the NPRM, again based on pilot association feedback, to
GLPA pilots provide service that is almost identical to the service provided by U.S. Great Lakes pilots. However, unlike the U.S. pilots, GLPA pilots are government employees with guaranteed minimum compensation, increases for high-traffic periods, benefits (retirement, healthcare, vacation), limited professional liability, and guaranteed time off during the shipping season.
Figures 18 through 20 show actual GLPA compensation figures for 2011-2014, adjust for foreign exchange differences and inflation,
Figure 19 adjusts these figures for inflation in each year.
Figure 20 shows the year-on-year percentage change in GLPA compensation, converted to 2016 USD.
We base our target pilot compensation on 2013 GLPA compensation, because it provides a more reliable benchmark than 2014, which saw a sharp rise from the previous trend, probably due to a 17 percent Canadian traffic increase in 2014, compounded by extended ice conditions.
Based on
The difference in the status of U.S. and Canadian pilots, and the different compensation systems in place in the two countries are supportable circumstances for adjusting U.S. target pilot compensation by 10 percent over the projected 2016 GLPA figure, taking the U.S. target to $326,114, as shown in Figure 22. Several speakers at the 2014 GLPAC meetings
Determine return on investment (§ 404.105). The 2013 average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities was 4.24 percent,
Figure 26 shows our new initial rate calculations.
District Three's rate
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the final rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. The following figure summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of the final rule.
The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on the Great Lakes annually. See Parts III and IV of this preamble for detailed discussions of the Coast Guard's legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual review for this rulemaking, we are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2016 shipping season so pilot associations can generate sufficient revenues to reimburse their necessary and reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested pilots, and provide an appropriate profit to use for improvements. The rate changes in this rule would lead to an increase in the cost per unit of service to shippers in all three districts, and result in an estimated annual cost increase to shippers of approximately $1,865,025 across all three districts over 2015 payments (Figure 27).
In addition to the increase in payments that would be incurred by shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of the rate changes, we are authorizing a temporary surcharge to allow the pilotage associations to recover training expenses that would be incurred in 2016. We estimate that District One will incur $450,000, District Two will incur $300,000, and District Three will incur $900,000 in training expenses. These temporary surcharges would generate a combined $1,650,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations across all three districts. Note that in the NPRM, we projected that the associations would hire 6 new pilots in 2016 at a training cost of $150,000 per pilot, for a total training cost of $900,000. We have modified pilot strength based on the pilot association's guidance for the number of registered and applicant pilots and project that the associations will hire 11 new pilots in 2016.
Therefore, after accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges across all three districts, the annual payments made by shippers during the 2016 shipping season are estimated to be approximately $3,515,025 more than the payments that were made in 2015 (Figure 27).
A regulatory analysis follows.
This rulemaking proposes revisions to the annual ratemaking methodology (procedural changes), and applies the ratemaking methodology to increase Great Lakes pilotage rates and surcharges from the current rates set in the 2015 final rule (rate changes). The methodology is discussed and applied in detail in Parts V and VI of this preamble. The last full ratemaking was concluded in 2015. The last annual rate review, conducted under 46 CFR part 404, appendix C, was completed early in 2011. Figure 29 summarizes the changes in the regulatory analysis (RA) from the NPRM to the final rule. These changes were the result of public comments received after publication of the NPRM. Figure 30 presents the elements in our analysis that changed along with the resultant change in the RA.
The shippers affected by these rate changes are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on routes within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels. Owners and operators of other vessels that are not affected by this final rule, such as recreational boats and vessels operating within the Great Lakes system, may elect to purchase pilotage services. However, this election is voluntary and does not affect the Coast Guard's calculation of the rate increase and is not a part of our estimated cost to shippers.
We used 2012-2014 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's SANS to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. Using that period, we found that a mean of 126 vessels journeyed into the Great Lakes system annually from the years 2012-2014. These vessels entered the Great Lakes by transiting at least one of the three pilotage districts before leaving the Great Lakes system. These vessels often make more than one distinct stop, docking, loading, and unloading at facilities in Great Lakes ports. Of the total trips for the 126 vessels, there were 396 annual U.S. port arrivals before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on 2012-2014 vessel data from SANS.
The procedural changes are the revisions to the annual ratemaking methodology and several Great Lakes pilotage regulations. The procedural changes include all changes to the annual ratemaking methodology as discussed in Section IV. These procedural changes are intended to clarify and simplify the current methodology, and increase the accuracy of collecting information on each pilot association's expenses and revenues in order to lower the variance between projected revenue and actual revenue. These procedural changes do not impose any direct costs, but indirectly affect the annual rate change. We capture these indirect impacts of procedural changes in the rate change impact. The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would generate costs on industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. The effect of the rate changes on shippers is estimated from the District pilotage revenues. These revenues represent the costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services. The Coast Guard sets rates so that revenues equal the estimated cost of pilotage for these services.
We estimate the effect of the rate changes by comparing the total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2015 with the figures for 2016, plus the temporary surcharges authorized by the Coast Guard. The last full year for which we have reported and audited financial information for the pilot association expenses is 2014, as discussed in Section VI of this preamble. Figure 31 shows the audited revenues and the revenue projections.
Figure 32 details the additional cost increases to shippers by area and district as a result of the rate changes and temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three.
The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2015 and the projected revenue in 2016 is the annual change in payments from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change. This figure is equivalent to the total additional payments from the previous year that shippers would incur for pilotage services from this final rule.
The effect of the rate change in this final rule on shippers varies by area and district. The rate changes would lead to affected shippers operating in District One, District Two, and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $463,123, $380,645, and $1,021,257, respectively, from the previous year.
In addition to the rate changes, temporary surcharges on traffic in District One, District Two, and District Three would be applied for the duration of the 2016 season in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses incurred. We estimate that these surcharges would generate an additional $450,000, $300,000, and $900,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations in District One, District Two, and District Three, respectively, for a total additional revenue of $1,650,000.
To calculate an exact cost or savings per vessel is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some owners and operators would pay more and some would pay less, depending on the distance travelled and the number of port arrivals by their vessels. However, the increase in costs reported earlier in this rulemaking does capture the adjustment in payments that shippers would experience from the previous year. The overall adjustment in payments, after taking into account the increase in pilotage rates and the addition of temporary surcharges would be an increase in payments by shippers of approximately $3,515,025 across all three districts.
This rule will allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes will promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by ensuring rates cover an association's operating expenses; provide fair pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for pilots; and ensures the association makes enough money to fund future improvements. The rate changes will also help recruit and retain pilots, which will ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, which would help reduce delays caused by pilot shortages. During the 2014 shipping season, shippers reported over $5 million in delay related costs (lost charter hire and fuel spent idling) from ships having to wait for pilots.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
We expect that entities affected by this rule would be classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code subsector 483—Water Transportation, which includes the following 6-digit NAICS codes for freight transportation: 483111—Deep Sea Freight Transportation, 483113—Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation, and 483211—Inland Water Freight Transportation. According to the Small Business Administration's definition, a U.S. company with these NAICS codes and employing less than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
For this rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership data for the period 2012 through 2014 in the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database,
There are three U.S. entities affected by the final rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they have approximately 65 total employees. We expect no adverse effect to these entities from this final rule because all associations receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours and pilots.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.”
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. It is not an economically significant rule and creates no environmental risk to health
This rule has no tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it has no substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Uniform System of Accounts.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 401, 403, and 404 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).
(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on—
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $580;
(2) Lake Ontario is $398;
(3) Lake Erie is $448;
(4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $684;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $264; and
(6) The St. Mary's River is $528.
(b) The pilotage charge is calculated by multiplying the hourly rate by the hours or fraction thereof (rounded to the nearest 15 minutes) that the registered pilot is on the bridge or available to the master of the vessel, multiplied by the weighting factor shown in § 401.400 of this part.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a vessel can be charged as authorized in § 401.405 of this part for the waters in which the event takes place, if—
(1) A U.S. pilot is retained on board while a vessel's passage is interrupted;
(2) A U.S. pilot's departure from the vessel after the end of an assignment is delayed, and the pilot is detained on board, for the vessel's convenience; or
(3) A vessel's departure or movage is delayed, for the vessel's convenience, beyond the time that a U.S. pilot is scheduled to report for duty, or reports for duty as ordered, whichever is later.
(b) When an order for a U.S. pilot's service is cancelled after that pilot has begun traveling to the designated pickup place, the vessel can be charged for the pilot's reasonable travel expenses to and from the pilot's base; and the vessel can be charged for the time between the pilot's scheduled arrival, or the pilot's reporting for duty as ordered, whichever is later, and the time of cancellation.
(c) Between May 1 and November 30, a vessel is not liable for charges under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, if the interruption or detention was caused by ice, weather, or traffic.
(d) A pilotage charge made under this section takes the place and precludes payment of any charge that otherwise could be made under § 401.405 of this part.
For a situation in which a vessel boards or discharges a U.S. pilot at a point not designated in § 401.450 of this part, it could incur additional charges as follows:
(a) Charges for the pilot's reasonable travel expenses to or from the pilot's base, if the situation occurs for reasons outside of the vessel's control, for example for a reason listed in § 401.420(c) of this part; or
(b) Charges for associated hourly charges under § 401.405 of this part, as well as the pilot's travel expenses as described in paragraph (a), if the situation takes place for the convenience of the vessel.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(a) Each association must maintain records for dispatching, billing, and invoicing, and make them available for Director's inspection, using the system currently approved by the Director.
(b) Each association must submit the compiled financial data and any other required statistical data, and written certification of the data's accuracy signed by an officer of the association, to the Director within 30 days of the end of the annual reporting period, unless otherwise authorized by the Director.
(c) By April 1 of each year, each association must obtain an unqualified audit report for the preceding year, audited and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards by an independent certified public accountant, and electronically submit that report with any associated settlement statements to the Director by April 7.
(a) Each association must record pilotage transactions using the system currently approved by the Director.
(b) Each pilot must complete a source form in detail as soon as possible after completion of an assignment, with adequate support for reimbursable travel expenses.
(c) Upon receipt, each association must complete the source form by inserting the rates and charges specified in 46 CFR part 401.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(a) The goal of ratemaking is to promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes, by generating for each pilotage association sufficient revenue to reimburse its necessary and reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested pilots, and provide an appropriate profit to use for improvements.
(b) Annual reviews of pilotage association expenses and revenue will be conducted in conjunction with an independent party, and data from completed reviews will be used in ratemaking under this part.
(c) Full ratemakings to establish multi-year base rates and interim year reviews and adjustments will be conducted in accordance with § 404.100 of this part.
(a) A pilotage association must report each expense item for which it seeks reimbursement through the charging of pilotage rates, and make supporting information available to the Director. The Director must recognize the item as both necessary for providing pilotage service, and reasonable as to its amount when compared to similar expenses paid by others in the maritime or other comparable industry, or when compared with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. The association will be given an opportunity to contest any preliminary determination that a reported item should not be recognized.
(b) The Director applies the following criteria to recognize an expense item as necessary and reasonable within the meaning of paragraph (a) of this section:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c) The Director does not recognize the following expense items as necessary and reasonable within the meaning of paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Unreported or undocumented expenses, and expenses that are not reasonable in their amounts or not reasonably related to providing safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service;
(2) Revenues and expenses from Canadian pilots that are commingled with revenues and expenses from U.S. pilots;
(3) Lobbying expenses; or
(4) Expenses for personal matters.
(a) The Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full ratemaking pursuant to § 404.101-404.108 of this part, conducted at least once every 5 years and completed by March 1 of the first year for which the base rates will be in effect. Base rates will be set to meet the goal specified in § 404.1(a) of this part.
(b) In the interim years preceding the next scheduled full rate review, the Director will review the existing rates to ensure that they continue to meet the goal specified in § 404.1(a) of this part. If interim-year adjustments are needed, they will be set according to one of the following procedures, selected as the Director deems best suited to adjust the rates to meet that goal—
(1) Automatic annual adjustments, set during the previous full rate review in anticipation of economic trends over the term of the rates set by that review;
(2) Annual adjustments reflecting consumer price changes as documented in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Midwest Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U); or
(3) A new full ratemaking.
The Director uses an independent third party to review each pilotage association's expenses, as reported and audited for the last full year for which figures are available, and determines which expense items to recognize for base ratemaking purposes in accordance with § 404.2 of this part.
The Director projects the base year's non-compensation operating expenses for each pilotage association, using recognized operating expense items from § 404.101. Recognized operating expense items subject to inflation or deflation factors are adjusted for those factors based on the subsequent year's U.S. government consumer price index data for the Midwest, projected through the year in which the new base rates take effect.
(a) The Director determines the base number of pilots needed by dividing each area's peak pilotage demand data by its pilot work cycle. The pilot work cycle standard includes any time that the Director finds to be a necessary and reasonable component of ensuring that a pilotage assignment is carried out safely, efficiently, and reliably for each area. These components may include but are not limited to—
(1) Amount of time a pilot provides pilotage service or is available to a vessel's master to provide pilotage service;
(2) Pilot travel time, measured from the pilot's base, to and from an assignment's starting and ending points;
(3) Assignment delays and detentions;
(4) Administrative time for a pilot who serves as a pilotage association's president;
(5) Rest between assignments, as required by 46 CFR 401.451;
(6) Ten days' recuperative rest per month from April 15 through November 15 each year, provided that lesser rest allowances are approved by the Director at the pilotage association's request, if necessary to provide pilotage without interruption through that period; and
(7) Pilotage-related training.
(b) Peak pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based on averaged available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a multi-year base period. Normally, the multi-year period is the 10 most recent full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under 46 CFR 403.300. Where such data are not available or reliable, the Director also may use data, from additional past full shipping seasons or other sources, that the Director determines to be available and reliable.
(c) The number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by totaling the area results by district and rounding them to the nearest whole integer. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make reasonable and necessary adjustments to the rounded result to provide for changes that the Director anticipates will affect the need for pilots in the district over the period for which base rates are being established.
(d) The Director projects, based on the number of persons applying under 46 CFR part 401 to become U.S. Great Lakes registered pilots, and on information provided by the district's pilotage association, the number of pilots expected to be fully working and compensated during the first year of the period for which base rates are being established.
The Director determines base individual target pilot compensation using a compensation benchmark, set after considering the most relevant currently available non-proprietary information. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make necessary and reasonable adjustments to the benchmark. The Director determines each pilotage association's total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot compensation by the number of pilots projected under § 404.103(d) of this part.
The Director calculates each pilotage association's allowed base return on investment by adding the projected adjusted operating expenses from § 404.102 and the total target pilot compensation from § 404.104 of this part, multiplied by the preceding year's average annual rate of return for new issues of high grade corporate securities.
The Director calculates each pilotage association's base projected needed revenue by adding the projected adjusted operating expenses from § 404.102 of this part, the total target pilot compensation from § 404.104 of this part, and the projected return on investment from § 404.105 of this part.
(a) The Director initially calculates base hourly rates by dividing the projected needed revenue from § 404.106 of this part by averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in accordance with § 404.103(b) of this part.
(b) If the result of this calculation initially shows an hourly rate for the designated waters of a district that would exceed twice the hourly rate for undesignated waters, the initial designated-waters rate will be adjusted so as not to exceed twice the hourly undesignated-waters rate. The adjustment is a reallocation only and will not increase or decrease the amount of revenue needed in the affected district.
The Director reviews the base pilotage rates initially set in § 404.107 of this part to ensure they meet the goal set in § 404.1(a) of this part, and either finalizes them or first makes necessary and reasonable adjustments to them based on requirements of Great Lakes pilotage agreements between the United States and Canada, or other supportable circumstances. Adjustments will be made consistent with § 404.107(b) of this part.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), request for public comments.
FMCSA proposes new training standards for certain individuals applying for their initial commercial driver's license (CDL); an upgrade of their CDL (
This NPRM responds to a Congressional mandate imposed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. The proposed rule is based on consensus recommendations from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee which held a series of meetings between February and May 2015. The compliance date of this proposed rule would be three years after the effective date of the final rule.
You must submit comments on or before April 6, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-2007-27748 using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” heading under the
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-366-4325, or by email at
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is organized as follows:
FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2007-27748), indicate the heading of the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission. However, see the
To submit your comment online, go to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is customarily not made available to the general public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your submission as “confidential” or “CBI.” Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.
To view comments and any document mentioned in this preamble, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
The Agency believes this rulemaking would enhance the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by establishing a more extensive entry-level driver training (ELDT) protocol and by increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. It would revise the standards for mandatory training requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate and intrastate operations who are required to possess a commercial driver's license (CDL). FMCSA proposes new training standards for certain individuals applying for an initial CDL, an upgrade of their CDL
FMCSA's legal authority to propose this rulemaking is derived from the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
The proposed rule would primarily revise 49 CFR part 380, Special Training Requirements. It would require an individual who must complete the CDL skills test requirements, defined as an “Entry-Level Driver”, to receive mandatory training. The proposed rule applies to persons who drive, or intend to drive, CMVs in either interstate or intrastate commerce. Military drivers, farmers, and firefighters are generally excepted from the CDL requirements in part 383, and they are excepted from this proposed rule.
The NPRM proposes a Class A and Class B CDL core curriculum; training curricula related to hazardous materials (H); passenger (P); and school bus (S) endorsements; and a “refresher” training curriculum. The core, endorsement, and refresher curricula generally are subdivided into theory and behind-the-wheel (BTW) (range and public road) segments. There is no proposed minimum number of hours that driver-trainees must spend on the theory portions of any of the individual curricula. The NPRM proposes that Class A CDL driver-trainees must receive a minimum of 30 hours of BTW training, with a minimum of 10 hours on a driving range. Driving on a public road would also be required, and Class A CDL driver-trainees may fulfill this requirement by either (1) driving 10 hours on a public road, or (2) 10 public road trips (each no less than 50 minutes in duration). Class B CDL driver-trainees must receive a minimum of 15 hours of BTW training, with a minimum of 7 hours of public road driving. And irrespective of the number of hours of BTW training, the training provider must not issue the training certificate unless the student demonstrates proficiency in operating the CMV. The NPRM also proposes that a CDL holder who has been disqualified from operating a CMV must successfully complete refresher training. Training providers must provide instruction on all elements of the applicable curriculum.
The NPRM would apply to entities that train, or expect to train, entry-level drivers, also referred to as herein as driver-trainees. Training providers, must, at a minimum, offer and teach a training curriculum that meets all FMCSA standards for entry-level drivers and must also meet requirements related to: Course administration, qualifications for instructional personnel, assessments, issuance of training certificates, and training vehicles (
The proposed compliance date for this rule is 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, which would provide the States with sufficient time to pass necessary implementing legislation, to modify their information systems to begin recording the training provider's certificate information on the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record, and to begin making that information available from the CDLIS driver record. This proposed phase-in period would also allow time for the driver training industry to develop and begin offering training programs that meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the TPR.
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers, training providers, State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs), and the Federal Government would incur costs for compliance and implementation. The costs of the proposed rule include tuition expenses, the opportunity cost of time while in training, compliance audit costs, and costs associated with the implementation of the TPR. As shown in table 1, FMCSA estimates that the 10-year cost of the proposed rule would total $5.55 billion on an undiscounted basis, $4.86 billion discounted at 3%, and $4.15 billion discounted at 7% (all in 2014 dollars). Values in table 1 are rounded to the nearest million.
The costs presented in table 1 include the costs associated with the S endorsement training requirement of the proposed rule, however the costs of the proposed rule specifically attributable to the proposed S endorsement training requirement were also evaluated separately. Details are presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket. This separate analysis of the costs of the proposed rule specifically attributable to the proposed S endorsement training requirement was done because Section 32304 of MAP-21 statutorily mandates training for new entry-level drivers who wish to obtain a CDL, or a P endorsement, or an H endorsement, but is silent with respect to the S endorsement. The analysis shows that inclusion of the proposed S endorsement training requirement increases the total cost of the rule by only approximately 0.36%. On an annualized basis at a 7% discount rate, this equates to an increase in the total cost of the rule from $550 million to the $552 million that is shown in Table 1.
This proposed rule would result in benefits to CMV operators, the trucking industry, the traveling public, and to the environment. FMCSA estimated benefits in two broad categories: Non-safety benefits and safety benefits. Training would lead to more efficient driving techniques, resulting in a reduction in fuel consumption and consequently lowering environmental impacts associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Training that promotes safer, more efficient driving has been shown to reduce maintenance and repair costs. Training related to the performance of complex tasks may improve performance; in the context of the training required by this proposed rule, improvement in task performance may reduce the frequency and severity of crashes thereby resulting in safer roadways for all. Table 2 presents the directly quantifiable benefits that FMCSA projects would result from the proposed rule (all in 2014 dollars, values rounded to the nearest million).
The directly quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule that are presented in Table 2 assume a future baseline in which a joint FMCSA/NHTSA Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters rule would be in effect. This approach was intended to be a conservative assumption, in that it reduces the potential amount of baseline industry fuel consumption from which the possible benefits of reductions in fuel consumption and CO
While FMCSA believes that the proposed rule would at minimum achieve cost-neutrality, the net of quantified costs and benefits (presented in table 4 below) results in an annualized net cost of $287 million at a 7% discount rate. This estimate is based only on
The lack of data directly linking training to improvements in safety outcomes, such as reduced crash frequency or severity, posed a challenge to the Agency throughout the development of the RIA. Discussion regarding the efforts undertaken by FMCSA and its partners in the negotiated rulemaking process to establish such a quantitative link is presented in the RIA. Although no empirical evidence linking safety to training was identified in this process, there remains a strongly held belief among stakeholders—including all who participated in the negotiated rulemaking—and the Agency that safety-oriented training
Table 5 below presents the projected number of crash reductions involving new entry-level drivers that must occur in each of the 10 years and in aggregate, in order to offset the net cost ($287 million annualized at 7%). To be clear, it is the sum of the monetized value of
This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as described below. It also implements section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requiring the establishment of minimum driver training standards for certain individuals required to hold a CDL. In addition, the proposed rule responds to the March 10, 2015, order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), referenced further below. This NPRM reflects the recommendations of FMCSA's Entry Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), comprised of 25 industry stakeholders and FMCSA, convened earlier this year through a negotiated rulemaking, as discussed below.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31052 (b), provides that “The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” This NPRM would improve the “safety of operation” of entry-level “employees” who operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, by enhancing the training they receive before obtaining or upgrading a CDL.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for CMV safety to ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is adequate to operate the vehicles safe; (4) the
This NPRM is based specifically on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), requiring regulations to ensure that CMVs are “operated safely,” and secondarily on section 31136(a)(2), requiring that regulations ensure that “the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.” The proposed rule enhances the training of entry-level drivers to further ensure that they operate CMVs safely and meet the operational responsibilities imposed on them.
This rulemaking does not directly address medical standards for drivers (section 31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects caused by driving CMVs (section 31136(a)(4)). However, to the extent that the various curricula proposed today address health and wellness issues that facilitate the safe operation of CMVs (section 31136(a)(3)), has been considered and addressed. Also, to the extent that curriculum addresses idling and related health effects (section 31136(a)(4)), has been considered and addressed. FMCSA does not anticipate that drivers will be coerced (section 31136(a)(5)) as a result of this rulemaking. However, we note that the training curricula proposed for Class A and B CDLs and for refresher training includes a unit addressing the right of an employee to question the safety practices of an employer without incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject to reprisal simply for stating a safety concern. Driver-trainees will also be instructed in procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries.
CMVSA provides, among other things, that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). The requirement of today's proposed rule that States test only those entry-level CDL applicants who have completed the training proposed by this NPRM falls within the “minimum standards for testing” authorized by the CMVSA. The training requirement itself, as described below, was created by section 32304 of MAP-21.
MAP-21 requires DOT to regulate ELDT. Public Law 112-141, section 32304, 126 Stat. 405, 791 (July 6, 2012). MAP-21 modified 49 U.S.C. 31305 by adding paragraph (c), which requires FMCSA to issue ELDT regulations. The regulations must address the knowledge and skills necessary for safe operation of a CMV that must be acquired before obtaining an initial CDL or upgrading from one class of CDL to another. MAP-21 also requires that training apply to CMV operators seeking passenger or hazardous materials endorsements (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1) and (2)). Although the statute specifically requires that the regulations include both classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction, MAP-21 otherwise allows FMCSA broad discretion to define the training methodology, standards, and curriculum necessary to satisfy the ELDT mandate.
MAP-21 clearly establishes the scope of operations to be covered by this rulemaking by requiring that ELDT regulations apply to prospective CDL holders operating in both interstate and intrastate commerce. The ELDT requirements are codified in section 31305, and the definition of a CMV in section 31301(4) therefore applies to ELDT. The definition of “commerce” in section 31301(2) covers both interstate commerce (paragraph A) and intrastate commerce (paragraph B). ELDT, as a CDL-related mandate, therefore applies to interstate and intrastate commerce.
The ELDTAC recommended the inclusion of a school bus (S) endorsement in the NPRM, although MAP-21 did not specifically mandate training for this endorsement. The current FMCSRs require that, in order for a driver to obtain the S endorsement, he or she must first obtain either a Class A or Class B CDL, as well as pass the knowledge and skills test for a passenger vehicle (P) endorsement (49 CFR 383.123). FMCSA believes that, since Congress recognized the importance of entry-level training in the operation of passenger vehicles by including the P endorsement within the scope of the MAP-21 mandate in section 31305(c), the inclusion of the S endorsement training curriculum in the NPRM is entirely consistent with that mandate.
While 49 U.S.C. 31305(c) clearly applies to entry-level CMV drivers—understood as new drivers—FMCSA believes that refresher training is necessary for essentially the same reason. CDL holders who have been disqualified from operating a CMV, have either never learned the necessary skills for safe operation of a CMV or have allowed those skills to deteriorate to the point where they have no greater mastery of operational safety than individuals who have not previously driven a CMV. The Agency believes that requiring refresher training for those drivers is well within the purpose and intent of the training mandate required in 49 U.S.C. 31305(c).
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their “costs and benefits” (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those factors are discussed in the RIA associated with this rulemaking.
In the early 1980s, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carriers, the predecessor to FMCSA, determined that there was a need for technical guidance in the area of truck driver training. This need was based on a Government Accountability Office report stating that a large percentage of truck crashes are due to driver error.
FHWA published a “Model Curriculum for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers” (Model Curriculum) in 1985. The Model Curriculum provided suggestions and recommendations for training providers covering curriculum, facilities, vehicles, instructor qualifications and hiring practices, graduation requirements, and student placement. Curriculum content addressed basic operation, safe operating practices, advanced operating procedures, vehicle maintenance, and non-vehicle activities (
The 1985 Model Curriculum recommended the equivalent of a total of 148 hours
CMVSA, which created the CDL program, defined a CMV, in part, as a vehicle operating in “commerce,” a term separately defined to cover both interstate commerce and operations that “affect” intrastate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31301(2) and (4)). CMVSA directed the Agency to establish minimum Federal standards that States must meet when testing and licensing CMV drivers. The goal was to ensure that drivers of large trucks and buses possess the knowledge and skills necessary to operate safely on public highways. Until 2012, however, as discussed further below in this section, Congress did not specify whether an ELDT rulemaking should be limited to CMV drivers in interstate commerce, or whether it should also encompass CMV drivers operating in intrastate commerce.
In accordance with part 383, all drivers of CMVs must possess a valid CDL. In addition to passing the CDL knowledge and skills tests required for the basic vehicle group, all persons who operate or anticipate operating double/triple trailers, passenger vehicles, tank vehicles, vehicles transporting hazardous materials, or school buses must obtain vehicle-specific endorsements under § 383.93(3)(b). The driver is required to pass a knowledge test for each endorsement, plus a skills test to obtain a passenger endorsement or a school bus endorsement.
By 1991, Congress became concerned about the quality and inconsistency of CDL-related training individuals were receiving prior to obtaining a CDL. As a result, section 4007(a)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) required FHWA to: (1) Study the effectiveness of private sector training efforts and to report its results to Congress; and (2) to commence a rulemaking on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers of CMVs (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2151, Dec. 19, 1991).
In 1992, the FHWA began to examine the effectiveness of private sector training. A 1995 report titled, “Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training” (the Adequacy Report) concluded, among other things, that effective ELDT needs to include BTW instruction. While the Adequacy Report recognized that ELDT seemed intuitively beneficial, it also acknowledged the lack of quantitative data linking driver training with positive safety outcomes. The Adequacy Report did not reach a conclusion as to whether “testing-based,” “training-based,” or “performance-based” approaches to ELDT would be more effective. The Secretary of Transportation submitted this report to Congress in 1996. A copy of the Adequacy Report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
In 1993, pursuant to section 4007(a)(2) of ISTEA, FHWA began a rulemaking to address the need to require training of all entry-level CMV drivers. On June 21, 1993, FHWA published an ANPRM titled “Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level Drivers” (58 FR 33874). The NPRM asked 13 questions pertaining to the adequacy of training standards, curriculum requirements, the requirements for obtaining a CDL, the definition of “entry-level driver” training, training pass rates, and costs.
In November 2002, several organizations filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the DC Circuit seeking an order directing the DOT to promulgate various regulations, including one establishing ELDT (petition for a writ of mandamus and for
The FMCSA published an NPRM on Friday, August 15, 2003, which proposed training for entry-level drivers based on three main principles (68 FR 48863). First, the NPRM focused on the types of drivers addressed in the Adequacy Report;
In 2005, three parties petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the 2004 rule. The Court held that the 2004 final rule was arbitrary and capricious because FMCSA ignored the finding of the Adequacy Report that BTW training was necessary and remanded the rule to the Agency for further consideration (
In response to the Court's decision in
Several industry organizations expressed opposition to the proposed requirements of a specific minimum number of training hours. Instead, these commenters generally supported a performance-based approach to training that would allow an individual to move through the training program at his or her own pace. Essentially, a driver who demonstrated mastery of one skill would be able to move to the next skill. The driver would not have to repeat continually or practice a skill for a prescribed amount of time—2 hours, for example—if the driver could master the skill in 20 minutes. However, among the various comments expressing support for a “performance-based” approach, there was no consistent interpretation of the term.
Other commenters, however, supported a minimum hours-based approach to training. They stated that FMCSA must specify the minimum number of instructional hours in order to be consistent with the original Model
The 2007 NPRM proposed that all commercial driver-training schools be accredited by an agency recognized by either the U.S. Department of Education (ED) or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Most commenters opposed the accreditation proposal because they claimed it is long and costly and would not necessarily result in better training of the students because the accreditation is not “program specific.” In other words, the training institution may obtain accreditation, but the accreditation would not be specific to the driver training program's course content. They argued that accreditation might restrict the number of schools where drivers could receive training.
Alternatives suggested included allowing training institutions to self-certify, subject to Federal or other oversight, or permitting training institutions to voluntarily obtain third-party certification or accreditation. However, other commenters believed that even stricter control of training schools should be exercised by the Federal and/or State governments.
Commenters from the motorcoach industry stated that they were an “afterthought” in the NPRM. Specifically, they stated that there was no mention of the Model Motorcoach Driver Training Curriculum in the proposed rule. One motorcoach company asserted that its in-house training program was much more rigorous than the Agency proposal and that it continually tested and re-trained its drivers. Others believed that the proposed training program would have particularly adverse consequences for the motorcoach industry as few institutions offered training specific to that segment of the industry.
Some commenters suggested that the Agency consider regulatory actions beyond what was proposed in the 2007 NPRM. For example, several individuals and organizations believed FMCSA should assess the merits of implementing a graduated CDL system approach. This concept would involve placing limits on the operations of new CDL holders for certain periods of time until the drivers obtain enough experience to operate without restrictions or limitation. Specifically, such a concept would require that the new CDL holder work under the supervision of an experienced driver or mentor as part of a team operation before being allowed to drive alone. Other commenters stressed that their companies are doing continuous training/testing and that re-training of individuals should be required. As proposed, the 2007 NPRM would have required training before an individual obtained a CDL; the “finishing training” advocated by some commenters was not discussed in the NPRM.
The Agency ultimately withdrew the 2007 NPRM for a number of reasons including: Sharply divided public comments; feedback from participants in the Agency's two public ELDT listening sessions held in 2013; recommendations by the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), noted below;
Section 32304 specifically mandates that DOT issue training regulations that (1) address the knowledge and skills needed for safe operation of a CMV, (2) address the specific training needs of those seeking hazardous materials and passenger endorsements, (3) create a means of certifying that an applicant for a CDL meets Federal ELDT requirements, and (4) require training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform Federal standards.
After Congress enacted MAP-21, FMCSA requested that MCSAC consider the history of the ELDT issue, including legislative, regulatory and research background, and identify ideas and concepts the Agency should consider in moving forward with a rulemaking to implement the MAP-21 requirements. MCSAC issued its letter report in June 2013.
On August 19, 2014, FMCSA formally announced that it was considering addressing the rulemaking mandated by MAP-21 through a negotiated rulemaking (79 FR 49044). Negotiated rulemaking is a process which brings together representatives of various interest groups and a federal agency to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The goal of a negotiated rulemaking proceeding is for the Committee to reach consensus on the text of a proposed rule. The Agency retained a neutral convener, as authorized by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(b)) to impartially assist the Agency in determining whether establishment of a negotiated rulemaking would be feasible and appropriate. To that end, the convener interviewed a broad range of stakeholders concerning ELDT.
On September 18, 2014, FMCSA and DOT were sued in a mandamus action requesting that the D.C. Circuit order the Agency to publish a proposed rule on ELDT in 60 days and a final rule within 120 days of the Court's order (
On November 26, 2014, the convener submitted his report to the Agency concluding that a negotiated rulemaking was feasible and appropriate. The convening report is available in the docket for this rulemaking. In December 2014, FMCSA announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop proposed regulations to implement the MAP-21 requirements concerning ELDT for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. At that time, FMCSA also stated its intention to finish the negotiated rulemaking process in the first half of 2015, followed by publication of an NPRM the same year and a final ELDT rule in 2016 (79 FR 73274, December 10, 2014). The Agency also described the issues to be addressed by the ELDTAC, interests likely to be significantly affected by the rule, proposed various organizations for membership, and explained how a person may apply or nominate another person for membership on the committee, as required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. The FMCSA solicited public comment on the proposal to establish the committee and the proposed membership of the negotiated rulemaking committee. The FMCSA considered the comments and applications submitted, and determined that a negotiated rulemaking committee could adequately represent the interests that would be significantly affected by a proposed rule, and that it was feasible and appropriate to establish the
On February 12, 2015, the Agency published a
On March 10, 2015, the court in
A consensus agreement of the ELDTAC,
At the ELDTAC's final session in May 2015, the Committee unanimously approved a final package of recommendations, as set forth in the Consensus Agreement, on which this NPRM is based. The key terms/concepts of the Consensus Agreement are:
• Beginning on the compliance date of the rule, no “Entry-Level Driver” may take a CDL skills test to receive a Class A CDL, Class B CDL, Passenger Bus endorsement, School Bus endorsement, or Hazardous materials endorsement unless he/she has successfully completed a training program that (1) is provided by a Training Provider who appears on FMCSA's TPR, and (2) is appropriate to the license/endorsement for which that person is applying.
• The ELDTAC approved proposed curricula for Class A CDL, Class B CDL, Passenger Bus endorsement, School Bus endorsement, Hazardous materials endorsement, and Refresher training.
• The ELDTAC approved proposed curricula for Class A and Class B training programs generally sub-divided into theory and BTW segments, with BTW driving occurring both on a “range” (any protected area not involving a public road) or a public road.
○ Theory may be taught either online or in a classroom. The ELDTAC agreed not to propose prescribing the length of time to be spent on theory/knowledge instruction. The training provider would administer a written knowledge assessment, which would provide a satisfactory test of competence in the area of instruction.
○ BTW instruction (range and road):
Class A CDL trainees would be required to receive a minimum of 30 hours of BTW with a minimum of 10 hours spent on a “range” (which may be any suitable area not on public roads), and 10 hours driving on a public road or 10 public road trips (no less than 50 minutes each). A 50-minute training session (“academic hour”) would count as one hour for purposes of this requirement. The training provider will determine how the remaining 10 hours of BTW training will be spent (
Class B CDL trainees would be required to receive a minimum of 15 hours of BTW (range and public road) driving, with a minimum of 7 hours of road driving. Again, a 50-minute training session (“academic hour”) would count as one hour under this requirement. Training providers may determine how the remaining 8 hours of BTW training are spent, as long as the range curriculum, as set forth below, is covered.
• These proposed requirements would apply to individuals who obtain the CLP on or after the compliance date. However, the new requirements would not apply to individuals—such as military drivers— for whom 49 CFR part 383 gives States the discretion to waive the CDL skills test. Any individual who fails to obtain the CDL within 360 days after obtaining a CLP would be required to complete a full ELDT course again following application for a new CLP.
• An individual holding a CDL that has been canceled or revoked by the State of issuance—and would thus be required to re-take a State-administered CDL exam—would not be required to re-take a full ELDT course as a condition of taking such exam. However, any individual whose CDL has been canceled or revoked for a highway-safety related reason would be required to complete refresher training from a provider listed on the TPR prior to re-taking the State CDL exam to re-instate his or her CDL Class A or Class B license.
• Once such refresher training is completed, the training certificate would be transmitted from the training provider to FMCSA, and the Agency would electronically transmit the certificate to the SDLA via the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS). The rule would include an explicit requirement for SDLAs to administer a CDL skills test to these individuals, but only if there is an electronic training certificate on file with the SDLA.
• To become an FMCSA-registered training provider, a person or institution would have to meet the applicable FMCSA's Eligibility Requirements for Training Providers, and complete and submit (online) a Training Provider Identification Report affirming under penalties of perjury that such provider will teach the FMCSA-prescribed curriculum that is appropriate for that license or endorsement and that such provider meets the eligibility requirements. Training providers that meet these requirements would be placed on FMCSA's TPR.
• The ELDTAC approved two sets of Eligibility Requirements that training providers would meet in order to appear on the TPR. One set of proposed requirements would apply to in-house
• The ELDTAC agreed that theory and BTW training may be delivered by separate providers.
• The ELDTAC approved FMCSA's draft regulatory text setting forth the general requirements for training providers listed on FMCSA's TPR.
• The compliance date of the rule would be three years from the effective date of the final rule.
Although the ELDTAC approved the consensus agreement unanimously, two parties formally dissented (as permitted by the ground rules for the negotiated rulemaking) on a single issue, requiring a minimum number of hours for BTW (range and road) for Class A training. A more detailed discussion of the ELDTAC's deliberations regarding the hours-based approach for BTW, including the dissenting comments, is provided below in the “General Discussion of the Proposal” section.
Several items were discussed by the Committee, but left to the Agency's discretion. These include:
• The impact of serious traffic violations on an individual's eligibility to be a BTW training instructor.
• Required record retention period for training providers listed on the TPR.
• Finalizing the Training Provider Identification Report requirements.
The Committee agreed that a BTW training instructor's driving record is relevant to his or her overall qualification, but left to FMCSA the decision on how long he or she must have a “clean” driving record. Accordingly, BTW training instructors, during the two years prior to engaging in BTW instruction, must not have had any CMV-related convictions for the offenses identified in § 383.51(b) through (e). FMCSA invites comment on this proposed driver training qualification.
ELDTAC briefly discussed how long training providers would be required to retain training records, but ultimately left the decision to the Agency. FMCSA proposes that the records be kept for three years after the date they are created, consistent with the retention requirements in § 391.51(d), General Requirements for Driver Qualification Files.
ELDTAC reviewed and commented on a draft version of the Training Provider Identification Report [to be attached as an Appendix] to be used by training providers seeking to be listed on the TPR. The Agency made minor changes to the design and content of the form to reflect the comments received during the ELDTAC's deliberations.
After the Agency began using the consensus of the Committee to form the basis of the proposed rule, the Agency found that there was a need for certain conforming changes. These include:
• State reinstatement of a CDL for the BTW portion of refresher training.
• A disqualification for refresher training.
• Use of a written assessment by training providers that provide theory training to three or fewer driver-trainees annually.
• Changes made to hazardous materials endorsement curriculum to be consistent with existing regulations.
• Other non-substantive or editorial changes.
The Agency proposes a conforming change related to the refresher training curriculum, which includes a BTW component. The completion of the BTW portion of the refresher training implicitly requires that driver-trainees be licensed to drive a CMV on a range or public road. Accordingly, we propose that if a CDL holder has been disqualified from operating a CMV under § 383.51(b) through (e), the State would reinstate the driver-trainee's CDL solely for the limited purpose of completing the BTW portion of the refresher training curriculum in § 380.625. The State may not restore full CMV driving privileges until the disqualification period is completed and the State receives notification, through the process described below, that the driver successfully completed refresher training. FMCSA specifically invites comment on the practical implications of implementing this proposed requirement.
The Agency modified the ELDTAC language concerning when a CDL holder would be required to take refresher training. In lieu of the revocation or cancelation of a CDL for highway safety related reasons by the State of issuance as a trigger for refresher training, the Agency proposes a disqualification under § 383.51(b) through (e) as the sole standard for requiring refresher training. This change would ensure consistency among the States in determining when refresher training is required. FMCSA is using this criteria for both when a CDL holder is required to take refresher training and for determining the qualification of a BTW instructor. The Agency requests comments on these changes. Additionally, FMCSA invites comment on whether a driver disqualified under § 383.52 should also be required to complete refresher training before his or her CDL is reinstated.
In reviewing the supporting documentation for the consensus agreement, FMCSA noted that training providers that provide theory training to three or fewer driver-trainees annually are not explicitly required to assess the driver-trainee's knowledge proficiency by using a written or electronic format (see annex 8, page 53 of the Consensus Agreement). The Agency believes, however, that a written or electronic assessment of a driver-trainee's proficiency by all training providers is necessary in order to create a record verifying that the training provider followed the applicable theory curriculum requirements; therefore, it includes this requirement in the NPRM. The Agency requests comment on this proposed clarification.
FMCSA also revised the description of training providers who train or expect to train three or fewer driver-trainees per year by deleting “small business or for-hire” but maintained the general concept as developed by the ELDTAC. We concluded that the deleted language detracted from the clear “dividing-line” between training entities established by the ELDTAC: Those entities that train three or fewer driver-trainees or those that train more than three.
Additionally, FMCSA made editorial changes to certain units in the H endorsement curriculum. The Agency changed the name of the “Cargo Tank” unit to “Bulk Packages”; and edited the “Loading and Unloading HM” unit to more accurately reflect the range of transportation containers addressed in current regulations (49 CFR part 177).
The six driver training curricula proposed in this NPRM were drafted by the ELDTAC. The Agency made non-substantive conforming editorial changes to certain portions of the curricula solely for purposes of clarity and consistency or to eliminate duplication. For example, the “accident procedures” unit of the Class A and B curricula has been removed because all of the requirements are set forth in the “post-crash procedures” units of those same curricula.
MAP-21 mandated that the FMCSA issue regulations to establish minimum entry-level training requirements for
In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes a definition of an “Entry-Level Driver,” a person who must complete the CDL skills test requirements, and focuses on drivers who intend to drive CMVs in interstate and/or intrastate commerce. Generally, military drivers are excepted, and farmers and firefighters are eligible to be excepted from current CDL requirements under § 383.3(c) and (d), respectively. These drivers would continue to be excepted under this proposed rule.
The proposed rule also applies to entities that train CDL applicants. Such providers would, at a minimum, offer and teach a driver training curriculum that meets all FMCSA standards as set forth in the NPRM. Furthermore, entities would meet and attest to their compliance with the eligibility requirements set forth in subpart G of part 380. These proposed requirements address the following areas: Course administration; instructional personnel qualifications; training vehicles; training facilities (
The NPRM proposes a Class A CDL core curriculum; a Class B CDL core curriculum; three specific endorsement training curricula: Hazardous materials (H), passenger bus (P), and school bus (S); and a “refresher” training curriculum. The core curricula for Class A and Class B CDL training programs subdivide into theory and BTW (range and public road). For those individuals seeking H, P, or S endorsements on their CDL, the appropriate training curriculum would be required. The proposed P and S training curricula are also divided into theory and BTW (range and public road) training. The H endorsement training curriculum is proposed as theory-only training because there is no CDL skills test currently required for those seeking an H endorsement. The NPRM does not propose that any minimum number of hours be spent by driver-trainees in completing the theory portion of any of the individual curricula, nor does it propose that any minimum number of hours be spent completing the non-BTW portion (
As proposed, a CDL holder who has been disqualified from operating a CMV would need to successfully complete refresher training requirements before applying for reinstatement of their CDL. Similar to the other curricula, the refresher curriculum is broken down into the categories of theory and BTW (range and public road) training; however, the NPRM does not propose that a minimum number of hours be required to complete any portion of the refresher curriculum. As noted above, the Agency proposes that SDLAs issue limited CDL privileges for persons seeking to become reinstated, solely for the purpose of allowing the driver to complete the BTW portion of the refresher curriculum.
The NPRM describes factors that would justify FMCSA's removal of a training entity from the TPR. The proposal sets forth procedures the Agency would follow before an entity can be removed from the TPR, as well as procedures that the training entities would follow in order to challenge a proposed removal.
This NPRM also proposes that training providers would electronically notify the TPR that driver-trainees have completed training by the close of the next business day. There would be no limit on the number of training certifications a provider may submit to the TPR at one time, so long as each individual driver-trainee's successful completion of his or her training is certified separately. The submission of documentation would ensure that each individual received the required training from a provider listed on the TPR prior to applying for the CDL and/or an applicable endorsement.
The proposed compliance date for this rule is three years after the effective date of the final rule. The Agency believes the three-year phase-in period would give the States enough time to (1) pass implementing legislation and/or regulations as necessary; (2) modify their information systems to begin recording the training provider's certification information into CDLIS and onto the driver's CDL record; and (3) begin making that information available to other States through CDLIS. The three-year phase-in period would also allow ample time for the CMV driver training industry to develop and begin offering training programs that meet the requirements for listing on the TPR.
While two ELDTAC members, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC), voted in favor of the unanimously approved consensus agreement as a whole, they disagreed with the other members of the ELDTAC that a minimum number of hours of BTW training should be prescribed for the Class A CDL. The statute, as noted previously, mandates some amount of BTW training, but it does not prescribe how much, nor does it state whether the minimum amount of BTW training be expressed in hours.
ATA cited two reasons for its disagreement with the consensus approach on minimum hours of BTW training. First, ATA argued that the hours-based proposal lacks a scientific basis. ATA cited a 2008 report from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) that concluded that “no relationship is evident between total training program contact hours and driver safety events when other factors such as age and length of employment are held constant.” ATA claimed, therefore, that a proposal prescribing a minimum number of BTW training hours was “arbitrary.”
Throughout the ELDTAC's deliberations, the need for correlative data pertaining to the effectiveness of
ATA's second argument was that using an hours-based approach is contrary to the “performance-based” approaches favored in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, as well as the Office of Management and Budget's guidance (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). FMCSA does not believe that the consensus proposal contravenes Executive Order 12866, Section 1 (b)(8), directive that “[e]ach agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and shall,
Although there are a required minimum number of BTW hours prescribed in this NPRM, FMCSA believes that many of the other provisions included are consistent with Executive Order 12866's emphasis on performance objectives, as illustrated by the level of discretion that instructors have when assessing the performance of individual driver-trainees. The NPRM proposes that instructors maintain significant flexibility, within the total number of hours required for BTW training in the Class A and B CDL curricula, to allot more or less time to specific elements of the training according to the instructor's evaluation of the trainee's demonstrated performance of required skills. For example, the NPRM permits instructors in the Class A curriculum complete discretion to determine how 10 hours (of the total required 30 hours) will be allocated, including whether those hours should be spent on the driving range or on a public road (or some combination of the two), as well as which specific driving maneuvers require further training. This level of instructional discretion, based entirely the trainee's demonstrated skill proficiency, permits BTW training to be tailored to the needs of the individual. This hybrid approach thus emphasizes the achievement of performance objectives, while also assuring that a reasonable amount of time will be spent on BTW training.
As further discussed below, the ELDTAC consensus process vetted all available evidence and alternatives. We further note that FMCSA's reliance on the consensus agreement “as the basis” for this proposal is required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(a)(7)) and the ELDTAC Ground Rules (Section (3)(a)).
As noted above, the Agency is bound to propose in this NPRM the ELDTAC's consensus package for notice and comment to the maximum extent possible consistent with its legal obligations. The preferred alternatives agreed upon as a package are outlined in the Written Statement from ELDTAC facilitator (docketed at FMCSA-2007-27748). But as discussed in the analysis of alternatives below, several other options were considered for some of the regulatory provisions being proposed. Due to our legal obligation to propose the consensus package, we provide relatively more analysis of the provisions adopted in the consensus package compared to the alternatives that were considered, but ultimately rejected, by the ELDTAC. As further discussed in the RIA, FMCSA provides some analytical assumptions about these alternatives, as compared to the alternatives ultimately proposed, as a basis for comparison. For example, some of the provisions rejected by the ELDTAC were opposed by industry based on cost considerations. We seek comment on the economic and analytical assumptions utilized to compare the alternatives considered to the approaches proposed in this NPRM.
As previously noted, the issue of a “performance-based” approach to BTW training versus an approach requiring that a minimum number of hours be spent in BTW training was the most thoroughly debated issue within the ELDTAC.
One of the difficulties surrounding the resolution of this question is that the term “performance-based” is subject to multiple interpretations. In response to the 2007 NPRM, which proposed a minimum number of hours for BTW training, FMCSA received numerous comments addressing the pros and cons of “performance-based” training. These comments made clear that various parties interpreted the term “performance-based” differently. For some commenters, it was a measure of the achievement of specific learning objectives with instructor flexibility, while other commenters thought the term simply meant that students could learn at their own pace. At least one commenter believed that the term indicated that no detailed curricula would be followed. Many commenters understood that a performance-based training system would allow proficient students to “test out” of an otherwise required curriculum. The ELDTAC's discussions also revealed a lack of common understanding of the term, although Committee members generally agreed that it did
Given the lack of industry consensus on the precise meaning of the term “performance-based,” the Agency hopes to avoid further confusion by not using it in this NPRM. However, by requiring that driver-trainees achieve specific performance objectives in both the
The proposed curricula in the NPRM sets forth prescriptive elements of each individual curriculum (including BTW vehicle maneuvers on both range and public road), all of which must be taught and assessed. Other than BTW (range and public road) training for the Class A and B CDL, discussed below, there are no required minimum hours that driver-trainees must spend to complete the applicable curricula. The NPRM reflects the Committee's consensus that detailed curriculum requirements, combined with a prescribed means of performance assessment in the theory and BTW portions of the curricula, are necessary to ensure both adequacy and uniformity of the minimum ELDT training mandated by MAP-21.
This approach prevents individual driver-trainees from “testing out” of any applicable training curriculums. The NPRM requires that, for the theory portion of the training, all elements of each curriculum be taught and a representative portion of each learning unit be assessed by written or electronic means. Driver-trainees must achieve a proficiency rate of at least 80 percent. In the case of BTW training, the ELDTAC first developed a detailed curriculum for Class A and B CDLs. The committee subsequently determined the minimum number of hours necessary to complete the prescribed curricula. A driver-trainee's competence will be evaluated by the training instructor who is observing the driver-trainees while they are in direct control of the CMV when performing the required elements of the BTW curriculum (noted below) for both range and public road driving. All required driving maneuvers must be performed to the satisfaction of the instructor and the required minimum number of hours for Class A and Class B CDLs must be logged. However, as noted above, the instructor has considerable discretion in determining how the required training time will be spent by each driver-trainee.
FMCSA believes that BTW training for entry-level drivers is uniquely suited to an hours-based approach because it ensures that driver-trainees will obtain the basic safe driving skills necessary to obtain a Class A or Class B CDL and to operate their vehicles safely—skills that can only be obtained after spending a reasonable amount of time
Further, FMCSA notes that this relatively modest hours-based approach proposed for BTW range training is coupled with required driving exercises that would provide driver-trainees with the opportunity to master basic maneuvers identified in the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
The ELDTAC gave extensive consideration to each driver-trainee correctly performing these key driving skills 5 times for Class A drivers (fewer times in the case of Class B), and having the training provider maintain written documentation of such performance in a “Master Trip Sheet” or some comparable document. Ultimately, the ELDTAC decided not to adopt this option—either in addition to, or in lieu of, a minimum number of hours of BTW training requirement. Instead, the ELDTAC recommended that FMCSA provide post-rule guidance on the use of a “trip sheet” as an illustrative method by which BTW training may be documented.
In the Agency's judgment, a hybrid approach combining minimum BTW hours requirement with detailed curriculum requirements is the best way to ensure that drivers will be adequately trained in the safe operation of Class A and Class B CMVs. This approach is also consistent with the recommendation included in the June 17, 2013, MCSAC Task 13-01 Report, “Recommendations on Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operators”, which stated that “the majority of the group. . .believes that FMCSA should mandate both some minimum behind-the-wheel training hours, along with performance-based requirements that achieve competency.”
While two ELDTAC members opposed any minimum hours requirement for BTW training, several members thought that the Consensus Agreement, as reflected in this NPRM, should have required a
Accordingly, we solicit comment on whether any minimum number of BTW hours should be required. If there is a required minimum number of hours for BTW training, we seek comment on whether the number of BTW training hours proposed in this NPRM should be retained, lowered, or increased. Further, because minimum hours are not proposed for BTW training for the S and P endorsements or for the refresher training, we also solicit comment on whether, and to what extent, a minimum hours requirement should be added to the BTW portions of those curricula.
As previously noted, according to some ELDTAC members and the Agency's own research, the minimum hours requirement for BTW proposed in this NPRM falls below the requirements currently imposed by many driver training programs. Some Committee members expressed concern that this proposal would cause existing training providers to reduce their level of training to reflect the proposed Federal minimum standard. FMCSA does not believe that will necessarily occur. In
The ELDTAC considered whether to propose that ELDT programs subject to this rule be accredited by third parties recognized by, for example, ED or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Citing the cost and potential administrative difficulties of implementing a third-party accreditation requirement, the Committee rejected this approach in favor of a self-certification process whereby training providers would attest that they meet specified eligibility requirements for listing on the TPR. The Committee approved the use of a detailed application, the Training Provider Identification Report (described below in the Paperwork Reduction Act section), designed to capture that information.
This approach is consistent with the MCSAC's recommendation that, in lieu of third-party accreditation, ELDT programs rely on an approved curriculum, quality assurance requirements for training providers, and a self-certification process to ensure a minimum level of program quality.
The Committee thoroughly considered the skills components and theory elements included in the six curricula proposed in the NPRM. At the outset, the ELDTAC agreed that the FHWA Model Curriculum would form the basis for initial discussions. The entire ELDTAC made all final decisions regarding curriculum content, based on detailed proposals by curriculum-specific Work Groups, which were revised and refined throughout the Committee's deliberations. FMCSA intends to provide additional post-rule guidance concerning available resources which may be used to supplement the required curricula, including those resources specifically identified by the ELDTAC: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) basic HM awareness;
Activities on the range training consist of driving exercises that provide practice for the development of basic control skills and mastery of basic maneuvers as set forth in the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) manual on how to operate a CMV safely. The experience on the range provides the groundwork for how to drive on the road in real world situations. The practicing of skills on the driving range will ultimately make a trainee a better driver. One example of a skill taught on the range is shifting. This is a skill that a trainee must master not only for acquiring their CDL, but also when the individual is operating on a public road or highway. These maneuvers/training topics are included in the road test that a trainee will need to know and master in order to pass this test and acquire their CDL. To maintain maximum flexibility, FMCSA did not propose that a certain portion of the range training needed to precede road training, but expects that trainers will require the completion of basic maneuvers in a controlled environment before allowing a student to operate on a public road.
FMCSA notes that ELDTAC did not propose a curriculum for Class C CDL training because a Class C vehicle, must, by definition, be designed to transport 16 or more passengers (including the driver) or any hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 383.5. As such, the Class C driver needs either a P or an H endorsement, and this NPRM proposes training curricula for both of those endorsements. Class C training is therefore effectively covered by the proposed endorsement training.
FMCSA seeks comment on the scope and content of the proposed curricula. For example, FMCSA is aware that some carriers and owner-operators utilize CMVs equipped only with an automatic transmission. In the proposed curricula for Classes A and B, shifting/transmission is a required element of both theory and BTW components of the training. We invite comment on whether there should be an option to forego this element of the training for driver-trainees who intend to operate CMVs equipped only with automatic transmissions. Currently, for drivers who take their CDL skills tests in a CMV equipped with an automatic transmission, the State must indicate on the CDL that the person is restricted from operating a CMV with a manual transmission (49 CFR 383.95(c)(1)).
FMCSA seeks comment on whether the hazardous material regulations (HMR) training in 49 CFR 172.704 could be used or modified to satisfy the H endorsement training in this proposed rule.
One of the most significant challenges faced by both FMCSA and ELDTAC is the limited quantitative or qualitative data correlating the provision of
During its deliberations, ELDTAC worked to ensure that the proposed rule would not be unduly burdensome to small entities that provide ELDT. The small business representatives on the ELDTAC provided valuable contributions in this regard. Based on their input, there are several regulatory elements in today's proposal tailored specifically to meet the needs of small training provider entities.
First, the Committee decided not to propose that any training entity maintain its own designated driving range. Instead, the NPRM sets forth the proposed elements that any area would meet in order to be suitable for range training. This approach provides the flexibility for small training entities to use publicly available areas, such as office building or mall parking lots during “off” hours for range training, so long as the basic definitional requirements (
Second, the Committee considered proposing requirements pertaining to classroom facilities used for teaching the theory portion of the curricula, such as adequate ventilation, adequate space per driver-trainees, etc. However, in deference to the concerns of small training providers, the Committee ultimately chose not to propose any standards in this NPRM regarding the physical learning environment for theory training. We note, however, that it is outside the scope of this proposal, as well as FMCSA's authority and the ELDTAC's jurisdiction, to propose any changes in classroom facility requirements currently imposed at the local, State, or Federal levels.
Third, this proposal reflects the ELDTAC's intent to impose fewer eligibility requirements regarding the instructional personnel of training providers who train, or expect to train, three or fewer entry-level drivers per year. For example, while instructors affiliated with these providers must have a valid CDL of the appropriate or higher class and endorsements required to operate the CMVs for which training is provided, plus at least one year of driving experience in those vehicles, they would not be required to have completed training in the on-road portion of the curriculum in which they are instructing (a requirement that is imposed on instructors affiliated with providers training more than three drivers per year).
Finally, ELDTAC decided not to propose that these small training entities provide written training materials addressing the various curricula elements proposed in this NPRM, in an effort to lessen the administrative burden on such entities.
Based on the Agency's review of supporting documents to the consensus agreement, we infer that the Committee also intended to exempt instructors affiliated with providers training three or fewer drivers per year from State requirements currently applicable to CMV instructors. We note, however that the Agency has no legal authority to do so.
Further, the Agency notes the relative ease with which all training providers, regardless of size, would be able to apply for and obtain listing on the TPR. The process would be entirely electronic, eliminating any need for paperwork. Listing on the TPR would be accomplished solely by the training providers' completion of the FMCSA Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report; there is no separate requirement that the training provider be accredited by a third-party. In declining to impose such a requirement, the Committee specifically cited the costs associated with third-party accreditation and the disproportionate impact of such a requirement on small training providers. In addition, the certification that a driver has completed training would also be accomplished electronically.
The Agency seeks comment from small business entities regarding any specific changes to the NPRM that would further lessen the regulatory burden imposed by these training requirements.
FMCSA has requested comment on several issues throughout this section. The Agency specifically seeks comments on the following topics.
1. Is there any additional data on the safety benefits of requiring ELDT training that you can provide (
2. As proposed, would the training be effective in improving safety? If so, what aspects of the proposal would be effective in improving safety? If not, how could the training be delivered more effectively than proposed?
3. Is there any duplication in the commercial learner's permit exam and ELDT theory training? If yes, should it be eliminated or minimized?
4. FMCSA proposed a specific number of required hours for the BTW training for Class A and B. First, should there be a required number of BTW hours for these two programs? If so, is FMCSA's proposal for 30 hours (Class A) and 15 hours (Class B) appropriate?
5. If there is not a required number of behind the wheel hours, what alternative would be appropriate to ensure adequate BTW training for Class A and B? Would a requirement that is expressed in terms of outcomes rather than specifying the means to those ends be more appropriate?
6. FMCSA allowed training providers flexibility by using either clock-hours or academic hours depending on the type of entity that offers the training (
7. MAP-21 did not mandate that FMCSA include the “S” endorsement as part of the required training. Given the devastating consequences of unsafe school bus operation, should the “S” endorsement training be retained in the final rule?
8. The Agency did not propose that the theory, BTW range, and BTW public road training occur in a specific sequence in order to allow training providers the flexibility to determine how they would structure their programs. FMCSA requests comment on whether there should be a particular order associated with the theory, BTW range, and BTW public road curricula.
Subpart E would be retitled as “Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements Before [DATE 3
The proposed entry-level driver training requirements that would replace those in current subpart E would be titled “Subpart F—Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements On and After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].”
This section states that the compliance date would be three years after the effective date of the final rule.
This proposed section specifies that Subpart F establishes requirements for entry-level drivers, minimum curriculum content, and standards for training providers. Proposed § 380.601 further specifies that the term “ELDT” applies only to individuals initially applying for a CDL or for a CDL upgrade and does not otherwise amend substantive CDL requirements in parts 383 and 384 beyond the changes authorized by MAP-21.
This proposed section explains that ELDT applies to all entry-level drivers, defined in this subpart, who intend to drive CMVs, as defined in § 383.5, in interstate and/or intrastate commerce. This section specifically excludes from its scope drivers excepted under § 383.3(c), (d), and (h), and those drivers applying for a restricted CDL under § 383.3(e) through (g). These exceptions cover many groups of drivers, including military drivers, farmers, and firefighters; veterans with military CMV experience who meet all the requirements and conditions of § 383.77; or applicants seeking restricted CDLs from Alaska, farm-related service industries, and the pyrotechnics industry. This proposal applies only to those individuals who, upon the compliance date, would need to obtain a CDL (or a CDL upgrade or endorsement) and does not otherwise amend substantive CDL requirements in parts 383 and 384.
Veterans with military CMV experience who meet all the requirements and conditions of § 383.77 would be excepted if the State waives the skills test, though they would still need to take the State's written test. These requirements apply to individuals who obtain the CLP on or after the compliance date. Any individual who fails to obtain the CDL within 360 days after obtaining a CLP would be required to complete a full ELDT course following application for a new CLP.
Once an entry-level driver receives training certification qualifying him or her to take the CDL skills test and/or the applicable endorsement skills test for the first time, the person is not required to obtain such certification again. However, if a CDL holder is disqualified from operating a CMV, a driver must take refresher training, as set forth in § 380.625, before reapplying for a CDL or endorsement.
FMCSA created a new definition for this subpart for behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor, behind-the-wheel (BTW) range training, behind-the-wheel (BTW) public road training, entry-level driver, entry-level driver training, experienced driver, range, refresher training, theory instruction,
In the definition of “BTW instructor” the Committee agreed to the requirement of 1 year of CMV experience driving or 1 year or experience as a BTW instructor. The Consensus Agreement included a statement that 2 or more years of such experience “is preferable.”
This proposed section explains in detail that an applicant for a CDL must complete training that meets the applicable requirements for the CDL class and endorsements (
This proposed section states that training providers must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of part 380 subpart G, and these training providers must attest that they meet those requirements. Upon request, training providers must supply documentary evidence to verify that they meet the requirements in subpart G.
As proposed, training in the theory and BTW portions of the curricula may be offered by the same or different training providers as long as the provider is listed on the TPR. The NPRM does not propose that the theory and BTW portions of the curricula be instructed in any particular order, although ELDTAC members suggested that the industry norm is that theory training precedes BTW (range and public road) training. If theory and BTW training is received from separate providers, FMCSA would not transmit training certification to the SDLA until it receives notice of successful completion of both theory and BTW (range and public road) training, when applicable. The Agency requests comment on whether the rule should require that theory and BTW training be taken sequentially and specifically whether theory training should be required before taking the State-administered written test to obtain a CLP.
This proposed section would require drivers seeking a Class A CDL to successfully complete the Class A curriculum outlined in this section. There is no minimum number of instruction hours proposed for the theory training, but the training provider would cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. The driver-trainees would also complete a minimum of 30 hours of BTW training with a minimum of 10 hours spent driving on a range. Driving on a public road would also be required, and Class A CDL driver-trainees may fulfill this requirement by either (1) driving 10 hours on a public road, or (2) 10 public road trips (each no less than 50 minutes in duration). The training provider will determine how the remaining 10 hours of BTW training will be spent (
This proposed section would require drivers seeking a Class B CDL to complete the Class B curriculum outlined in this section. No minimum number of instruction hours for theory training is proposed, but the training provider would cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. The driver-trainees would also complete a minimum of 15 hours of BTW driving training, with a minimum of 7 hours of public road driving. Training providers may determine how the remaining 8 hours of BTW training are spent, as long as the range curriculum, as set forth below, is covered. The mandatory minimum number of hours of BTW driving training would be conducted in a CMV for which a Class B CDL would be required.
This proposed section sets forth the proposed training requirements and curriculum for CMV drivers seeking a passenger (P) endorsement. As proposed, there is no minimum number of instruction hours for the theory and BTW (range and public road) portions of the P endorsement training, but the training provider would cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. The training would be conducted in a representative vehicle for the P endorsement.
FMCSA proposes a curriculum to address the specific training needs of a CMV driver seeking an S endorsement on a CDL. As proposed, there is no minimum number of hours for the theory and BTW (range and public road) portions of the S endorsement training, but the training provider would cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. The training would be conducted in a representative vehicle for the S endorsement.
This proposed section sets forth the training requirements and curriculum for a CMV driver seeking a hazardous materials (H) endorsement. As proposed, there is no minimum number of instruction hours for this training. This proposed training would be theory-only because the current CDL requirement to obtain an H endorsement does not include a skills test.
This proposed section specifies the refresher training for CDL holders who are disqualified from operating a CMV (49 CFR 383.51(b) through (e)). These individuals would be required to complete refresher training from a provider listed on the TPR. As proposed, there is no minimum number of instruction hours for the theory and BTW (range and public road) portions of the refresher training, but the training provider would cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum.
This proposed section establishes the minimum qualifications for an entity to be eligible for listing on the FMCSA Training Provider Registry (TPR). The TPR would be an online portal administered by FMCSA allowing training providers to register. The TPR allows drivers seeking training to find an eligible provider who meets their needs.
This proposed section outlines the requirements that a training provider would meet in order to be eligible for listing on the TPR. Training providers would agree to follow the applicable curriculum for the CDL class and/or endorsement for which they provide training. Additionally, the training provider would utilize instructors, facilities, and equipment that meet the proposed requirements. Third, the training provider would allow FMCSA or its designated representative to conduct audits or investigations to ensure that the provider meets the eligibility criteria for listing on the TPR. Finally, the training provider would complete the FMCSA Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report [See appendix for part 380], which provides basic business information to FMCSA and also includes an attestation, under penalties of perjury, that the provider meets all of the requirements for listing on the TPR. This section also provides that once a training provider meets the requirements of §§ 380.703 and 380.707, the training provider would receive a unique TPR number from FMCSA for each separate training location to be listed on the TPR.
This proposed section would require that the training provider ensure that public road driver-trainees meet certain Federal, State, and local rules and regulations related to their ability to obtain a CDL. This section reiterates that training providers would follow the applicable curriculum for the CDL class or endorsement for which they provide training. In addition, the training provider would offer reasonable assurance that driver-trainees can demonstrate proficiency in the theory and/or BTW (range and public road) portions of the curriculum.
This proposed section includes a requirement that the classroom facilities meet all currently applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. For reasons noted previously, FMCSA is not imposing any requirements related to classroom facilities.
The driving range, as defined in § 380.605, must be free of obstructions, enable the driver to maneuver safely and be free from interference from other vehicles and hazards, and have adequate sight lines. A training provider that teaches the range portion of the curriculum would have an instructor onsite who can demonstrate appropriate skills and correct deficiencies of individual driver-trainees.
This section proposes that training providers use training vehicles that are in safe mechanical condition. Vehicles used for BTW training would comply with applicable Federal and State safety requirements. Driver-trainees would be instructed in the same class (
This section proposes that theory training providers utilize instructors who are either an experienced driver or a theory instructor as defined in § 380.605. BTW training providers would be required to utilize experienced drivers as defined in § 380.605. In addition, BTW training instructors, during the two years prior to engaging in BTW instruction, must not have had a disqualification, as defined by § 383.5, under § 383.51(b) through (e). Training providers would also be required to utilize only BTW instructors on public roads whose driving record meets applicable Federal and State requirements.
This section proposes that training providers assess (in written or electronic
This section proposes that all training providers be required to upload training certificates to the TPR by close of the next business day after the driver-trainee successfully completes the training. The Agency would transmit the certification to the SDLA via CDLIS. This certificate would include:
(a) Driver name, CDL/CLP number, and State of licensure;
(b) Vehicle class and/or endorsement training the individual received;
(c) Name and TPR identification number of the training provider; and
(d) Date of successful completion of the training.
The Agency proposes that, in order to remain on the TPR, a training provider would continue to ensure that its program meets the requirements defined in § 380.703 as well as all applicable State training licensure, registration, certification, or accreditation requirements. The goal is not to attempt to enforce State requirements, but to ensure that a training provider that fails to satisfy applicable State requirements should not remain on the TPR. In addition, a training provider would update its FMCSA Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report biennially and report changes in key information to FMCSA within 30 days of the change. Key information changes would include a change in the status of a training provider based on the number of driver-trainees actually trained in a twelve-month period. For example, if, when submitting the report form, a training provider anticipated training three or fewer driver-trainees annually, but in fact trained more than three, that provider would no longer be eligible for treatment as a small training provider. The provider's change in status would be updated on the report form and the provider would thereafter be subject to all requirements of § 380.707 (a) through (d). We invite comment regarding this proposed requirement. The training provider would also maintain required documentation as set forth in § 380.725 and ensure such documentation is available upon request to FMCSA or its authorized representative. Finally, in order to be eligible for continued listing on the TPR, training providers would allow FMCSA or its authorized representative to conduct an audit or investigation of the provider's operations.
This section proposes that FMCSA may rely on a variety of factors to determine whether to remove a training provider from the TPR, including, but not limited to:
• The provider's failure to comply with the requirements for continued listing on the TPR, as described in § 380.719.
• The provider's failure to permit FMCSA or its authorized representative the opportunity to conduct an audit or investigation of its operations.
• The audit conducted by FMCSA or its authorized representative identifies material deficiencies in the training provider's compliance with the eligibility requirements for listing on the TPR.
• The training provider falsely claims to be authorized to provide training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in any State in which the provider conducts training.
• The SDLA CDL exam passage rate of those individuals who successfully complete the provider's training is abnormally low. FMCSA is not establishing a minimum required CDL passage rate, but would use this information in the context of State norms.
• There is evidence of fraud or other criminal behavior by the training provider.
FMCSA would establish procedures for removing training providers from the TPR based on the failure of the training provider to meet the applicable requirements under 49 CFR part 380. This section proposes that the Agency provide the training provider with a notice stating the reason for the proposed removal and any corrective actions the training provider must take in order to remain listed on the TPR. The training provider must notify current driver-trainees, as well as those persons scheduled for future training, that it has received a notice of proposed removal. Training conducted after the issuance of a notice of proposed removal would not be compliant and, therefore, not valid for issuance of a CDL, until FMCSA withdraws the notice.
A training provider that wishes to remain listed on the TPR would have to provide a written response to the Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards (Director), within 30 days of the proposed removal, explaining why it believes that decision is not proper or setting forth the corrective actions that the training provider will take, or has taken. Within 60 days, the Director would notify the training provider of the Director's decision. Within 30 days of its removal from the TPR, a training provider may submit a written request for review of the Director's decision to the FMCSA Associate Administrator of Policy.
The ELDTAC discussed the effect of a training provider's involuntary removal from the TPR on those driver-trainees enrolled in that provider's program at the time of the removal, but who have not yet completed their course of training. The Committee ultimately decided that this is an issue appropriately left to negotiations between driver-trainees and the training provider.
In extreme circumstances, the Director may immediately remove a training provider from the TPR. An extreme circumstance may include, for example, issuance of a training certificate without a training provider actually providing any training. Alternatively, training providers may voluntarily remove themselves from the TPR by submitting a written request to the Director.
These proposed removal procedures are based on the process currently used in § 390.115, Procedure for removal from the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. The Agency seeks comment on whether there are preferable alternative approaches to the removal of training providers from the TPR.
This section proposes the documents that training providers must maintain and for how long. All training providers would maintain these records for 3 years from the date they were created, consistent with § 391.51, General requirements for driver qualification files.
A new paragraph (a)(8) proposes that CDL holder may not be fully reinstated after a disqualification from operating a CMV under § 383.51 (b) through (e) until the individual successfully completes the refresher training curriculum in § 380.625.
New paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(11), and (e)(3) through (5) propose the successful completion of the training prescribed in part 380, subpart F, before an initial Class A or B CDL, or a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement, or an upgrade to the CDL is issued. In addition, paragraph (a)(4) would require driver-trainees who have successfully completed the theory portion of the training to complete the skills portion within 360 days, except for driver-trainees seeking the H endorsement (for which the skills test is not required).
New paragraphs (b)(10) and (c)(8), and a revised paragraph (b)(3)(ii) propose to prohibit a State from issuing an initial Class A or B CDL, or a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement, or an upgrade to a CDL unless the SDLA has received electronic certification indicating completion of the ELDT requirements in part 380.
New paragraph (h) proposes to allow limited commercial driving privileges after a CDL holder has been disqualified from operating a CMV under § 383.51(b) through (e). The State would reinstate the CDL solely for the limited purpose of the driver's completion of the BTW portion of the refresher training curriculum in § 380.625. The State may not restore full CMV driving privileges until the State receives notification that the driver successfully completed the refresher training curriculum.
New paragraph (a)(10)(ix) would designate “R” as the code for the refresher training restriction on a CDL.
On or after the compliance date of the final rule, a State may not issue an initial Class A or B CDL; an initial CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement; or a CDL upgraded from one class to another; or may not upgrade a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement, unless it follows the procedures prescribed in § 383.73 of this subchapter for verifying that a person received training from a provider listed on the TPR. A State may issue a CDL to an individual who obtained a CLP before the compliance date when such an individual has not complied with § 380.603(c)(1), as long as the individual obtains a CDL within 360 days after obtaining a CLP. A State may not issue a CDL to an individual who obtains a CLP
States would be required to comply with the new ELDT requirements within three years of the effective date of the final rule.
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). It also is significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because the economic costs and benefits of the rule exceed the $100 million annual threshold and because of the substantial congressional and public interest concerning the lack of Federal entry-level driver training requirements. A draft regulatory impact analysis is available in the docket as indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble.
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers, training providers, SDLAs, and the Federal Government would incur costs for compliance and implementation. The costs of the rule include tuition expenses, the opportunity cost of time while in training, compliance audit costs, and costs associated with the implementation of the TPR. As shown in Table 1 above, FMCSA estimates that the 10-year cost of the proposed rule would total $5.55 billion on an undiscounted basis, $4.86 billion discounted at 3%, and $4.15 billion discounted at 7% (all in 2014 dollars).
This proposed rule would result in benefits to CMV operators, the trucking industry, the traveling public, and to the environment. FMCSA estimated benefits in two broad categories: Non-safety benefits and safety benefits. Training would lead to more efficient driving techniques, resulting in a reduction in fuel consumption and consequently lowering environmental impacts associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Training that promotes safer, more efficient driving has been shown to reduce maintenance and repair costs. Training related to the performance of complex tasks may improve performance; in the context of the training required by this proposed rule, improvement in task performance may reduce the frequency and severity of crashes thereby resulting in safer roadways for all. As stated in the stand-alone regulatory impact analysis, however, lack of data directly linking training to improvements in safety outcomes (such as reduced crash frequency or severity) necessitated that the Agency perform a threshold analysis, consistent with OMB Circular A-4 guidance, to determine the degree of safety benefits that would need to occur as a consequence of this proposed rule in order for the rule to achieve cost-neutrality.
Absent any quantified safety benefits, as shown in table 2 of section B. Summary of Major Provisions, the directly quantifiable benefits over the 10-year period of 2020 to 2029 attributable to the proposed rule total $2.68 billion on an undiscounted basis, $2.33 billion discounted at 3 percent, and $1.99 billion discounted at 7 percent (all in 2014 dollars).
The net cost of this proposed rule (net of costs and quantifiable benefits) over the 10-year period of 2020 to 2029, for which the threshold analysis estimated the degree of safety benefits necessary to offset, total $2.54 billion discounted at 3 percent, and $2.16 billion discounted at 7 percent. On an annualized basis,
As documented in detail in the RIA, an 8.15% improvement in safety performance (that is, an 8.15% reduction in the frequency of crashes involving those new entry-level drivers who would receive additional pre-CDL training as a result of this proposed rule during the period for which the benefit of training remains intact) is necessary to offset the net cost of the rule. The RIA is available in the docket.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 September 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. FMCSA has not determined whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, FMCSA is publishing this initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the proposals in this NPRM. We invite all interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact that would result from adoption of the proposals in this NPRM. We will consider all comments received in the public comment process when making a determination in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment.
An IRFA, which must accompany this NPRM, must include six components. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b) and (c). The Agency has listed these components and addresses each section with regard to this NPRM.
• A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered;
• A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
• A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
• A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
• A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
Section 4007(a) of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, December 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 1914, 2151) directed the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a rulemaking on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers of “CMVs.” The Agency has since published multiple rulemakings that would require training of entry-level drivers of CMVs, but has not published a final rule that was upheld in the courts. The proposed rule also responds to the March 10, 2015, order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In August 2014, FMCSA formally announced that it was considering whether to address this rulemaking through a negotiated rulemaking. Based on the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561-570), the Agency retained a neutral convener, as authorized under 5 U.S.C. 563(b), to interview interested parties and examine the potential for a balanced representation of these interests on an advisory committee (79 FR 49044-45). This proposal is based on the conclusions and recommendations of the advisory committee.
The Agency is proposing this rule to mandate training for entry-level drivers that are required to obtain a CDL or endorsement.
The NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, and Section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).
FMCSA proposes to mandate standards for minimum training requirements for entry-level drivers of CMVs operating in interstate and intrastate commerce that are applying for a CDL or certain endorsements. The main objective of this proposal is to improve highway safety by ensuring that entry-level CMV drivers receive appropriate training that takes into consideration the type of activities they perform.
“Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Section 601(3) defines a “small entity” as having the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4), likewise includes within the definition of “small entities” not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their fields of operation. Additionally, section 601(5) defines “small entities” as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000.
This proposed rule would affect entry-level drivers, motor carriers, and training providers. This proposed rule would directly apply to entry-level drivers seeking to obtain a CDL or a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement. Entry-level drivers are not small entities as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and are therefore not included in this IRFA.
This proposed rule does not directly regulate motor carriers, but it could indirectly affect either their motor carrier operations or their in-house training operations. A potential concern is that this proposed rule could constrain their ability to hire entry-level drivers by either constricting the pool of available entry-level drivers or increasing the market wage for entry-level drivers. However, as discussed in the RIA, most of the industry is already completing training at least equal to the requirements of this proposed rule and FMCSA does not think that the minimal requirements of this proposed rule would lead to a driver shortage, or increased wages. Furthermore, small- to
Components of this proposed rule would apply to training providers that choose to become registered with FMCSA through inclusion on the TPR. These training providers could be training schools, educational institutions, motor carriers offering in-house training to their employees or prospective employees, local governments or school districts providing training to transit agency or school bus driver employees.
These training providers operate under many different North American Industry Classification System
FMCSA examined data from the 2007 Economic Census, the most recent Census for which data were available, to determine the percentage of firms that have revenue at or below SBA's thresholds.
Motor carrier operations in the Truck Transportation industry and in the Transit and Ground Passenger industry primarily earn their revenue via the movement of people and goods. Very few of these firms would choose to become training providers, and FMCSA estimates that those firms that do train their own employees or prospective employees are generally larger in size. FMCSA does not know how many motor carriers provide in-house training, but is confident that the number of small entities in these industries who would chose to become certified training providers is a small
The Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation subsector that focuses on School and Employee Bus Transportation (485410) is more likely to contain a high percentage of training providers than the rest of NAICS Sector 485. These entities often perform contract bus services for school districts, and some are responsible for training their employee to the standards of the State or county. The SBA size standard for this subsector is $15 million, and FMCSA estimates that about 99% of the school and employee bus transportation firms are considered small based on the SBA size standard.
Entities that identify with four of the 6-digit NAICS code in the educational services sector could register with the TPR to become training providers. The Census Bureau does not publish size by revenue data for entities in the Junior Colleges sector or the Colleges, Universities, and professional schools sector. FMCSA conservatively estimated that all of the firms in these two sectors would be small. The Census Bureau does publish size by revenue data for the apprenticeship training and other technical and trade school industries. Approximately 98% and 99%, respectively, of the firms in these industries are small. The other technical and trade school industry contains those firms that identify as truck driving schools (6115193). About 99% of truck driving schools are considered small based on the SBA size standard.
FMCSA examined data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) National Transit Database (NTD) to determine the number of transit agencies that serve a population of less than 50,000, and would therefore be considered small.
The 2012 Census of Governments, a survey coordinated by the Census Bureau, provides information on the school districts throughout the country.
Table IFRA 2 below shows the complete estimates of the number of small entities that might choose to become certified training providers.
This proposed rule would include recordkeeping requirements that would pertain to small training providers. In order to be included on the TPR, each training provider would be required to submit a training provider identification report biennially at a minimum or when the information for the training provider changes and needs to be updated, the training provider goes out of business, or the training provider is re-applying to be re-listed on the TPR after previous removal. Each training provider would be required to upload training completion certification into the TPR for each entry-level driver by the next business day following completion of the training. Each training provider would be required to make themselves and their records available for inspection upon request by FMCSA or its enforcement partners. FMCSA believes that a professional or administrative employee would be capable of creating and uploading these records and requests comment on whether skills beyond those typical of a professional or administrative employee would be necessary for the above recordkeeping requirements.
FMCSA is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The current entry-level driver training requirements in 49 CFR part 380, subpart E, which are quite minimal compared to those being proposed by the NPRM, would be replaced by those in the NPRM.
FMCSA attempted to draft a proposed rule that would minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The negotiated rulemaking process by which this proposed rule was developed provided outreach to small motor carriers and training provider representatives through the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC). The ELDTAC often discussed issues specific to small motor carriers and those training fewer than three entry-level drivers per year. The discussions yielded many insights, and the proposed rule takes into account the concerns expressed by small motor carrier representatives during the committee meetings. For example, training entities are not required to have a designated range, nor is FMCSA proposing training facility requirements. FMCSA is not aware of any significant alternatives that would meet the intent of our statutory requirements, but requests comment on any alternatives that would meet the intent of the statutes and prove cost beneficial for small entities.
FMCSA is not a covered agency as defined in section 609(d)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and has taken no steps to minimize the additional cost of credit for small entities.
FMCSA requests comments on all aspects of this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Rich Clemente, listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, taken together, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation to present-day dollars) or more in any 1 year. This rulemaking would result in private sector expenditures in excess of the $155 million threshold. Gross costs, however, are expected to be offset by fuel, carbon dioxide, and maintenance and repair savings, making this NPRM cost-neutral based on reduced instances of crashes, as further discussed in the threshold- based analysis described in the RIA.
A written statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required for regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. 2 U.S.C. 1531. MAP-21 mandated that FMCSA issue regulations to establish minimum entry-level training requirements for all initial CLP/CDL applicants and CDL holders seeking license upgrades. Because this proposed rule implements the direction of Congress in mandating ELDT, a written statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.
The proposed regulations require training providers to obtain, collect, maintain, and in some cases transmit information about their facilities, curricula and graduates. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) prohibits Agencies from conducting information-collection (IC) activities until they analyze the need for the collection of information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time a training provider will expend transmitting certification data to FMCSA. The Agency submits its IC analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal information collection request (ICR); the Agency cannot conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.
FMCSA proposes that the compliance date for the amended training rules be three years following publication of the final rule in order to provide interested parties sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements. Thus, the compliance date will be no earlier than the year 2019. Until that time, the current regulations pertaining to the training of entry-level drivers (49 CFR Subpart E) will remain in place. OMB approves information-collection activities for no more than 3 years. Consequently, at this time, the Agency does not amend its current OMB-approved estimate of the information-collection burden of subpart E: 66,250 hours.
Today, FMCSA asks for comment on the IC requirements of this proposed rule. The Agency's analysis of these comments will be used in devising the Agency's estimate of the IC burden of the final rule. Comments can be submitted to the docket as outlined under
A rule has implications for Federalism under § 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this proposal would have substantial direct costs on or for States or would limit the policymaking discretion of States.
FMCSA recognizes that, as a practical matter, this proposed rule may have some impact on the States. Accordingly, the Agency sought advice from the National Governors Association (NGA), National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), and National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools (NAPFTDS) on the topic of entry-level driver training, by letters to each organization, dated July 6, 2015. (Copies of these letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.) FMCSA offered NGA, NCSL, AAMVA, and NAPFTDS officials the opportunity to meet and discuss issues of concern to the States. It should also be noted that AAMVA was a member of the ELDTAC, whose consensus recommendations form the basis of this NPRM. State and local governments will also be able to raise Federalism issues during the comment period for this NPRM.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is economically significant. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any way create an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. In accordance with this Act, a privacy impact analysis is warranted to address the collection of personally identifiable information contemplated in the proposed Entry-Level Driver Training rulemaking.
The DOT Chief Privacy Officer has determined that this rulemaking results in a low to moderate level of privacy risk for driver-trainees seeking certification through approved training providers. The NPRM requires these individuals to provide approved training providers certain personally identifiable information including, Name, CDL/CLP number, and State of licensure for the purposes of identity verification at the time of training. This information in conjunction with the individuals training record is maintained by the training provider in the individual's training record and is transmitted to the multi-state Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS). State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs) may then access the individual's training record in accordance with CLDIS protocol. Individuals seeking information on the data privacy practices of training providers should consult with the specific provider.
To limit the burden on the public, the Department will provide a single technical interface in order to promote the efficient transmission of trainee data from approved training providers to CDLIS. The Department will establish technical, administrative, and physical security requirements, as appropriate to ensure the secure data transfer. An approved training provider would upload its training certificates to the Training Provider Registry which would instantaneously transmit the information electronically to CDLIS for entry into the appropriate CDL driver record. The driver-trainee would be able to apply for a CDL when the SDLA pulled the CDL driver record from CDLIS and verified that he/she had successfully completed the appropriate training. The Department will not retain a copy of the trainee certificate in its systems.
This PIA will be reviewed and revised as appropriate to reflect the Final Rule and will be published not later than the date on which the Department initiates any of the activities contemplated in the Final Rule that have an impact on individuals' privacy.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this NPRM under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive order, and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 380, 383, and 384 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 31307, 31308, and 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2151-2152); sec. 32304 of Pub. L. 112-141; and 49 CFR 1.87.
Compliance with the provisions of this subpart is required on or after [DATE THREE YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
This subpart establishes training requirements for entry-level drivers, minimum content for training curricula, and standards for training providers. Entry-level driver training, as defined in this subpart, applies only to those individuals who need to obtain a commercial driver's license (or a commercial driver's license upgrade or endorsement) and does not otherwise amend substantive commercial driver's license requirements in part 383 of this chapter.
(a) The rules in this subpart apply to all entry-level drivers, as defined in this subpart, who intend to drive CMVs as defined in § 383.5 of this chapter in interstate and/or intrastate commerce, except:
(1) Drivers excepted from the CDL requirements under § 383.3 (c), (d), and (h) of this chapter;
(2) Drivers applying for a restricted CDL under § 383.3(e) through (g) of this chapter; and
(3) Veterans with military CMV experience who meet all the requirements and conditions of § 383.77 of this chapter.
(b) Drivers who hold a valid CDL issued before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] are not required to comply with this subpart except as otherwise specifically provided.
(c) (1) Individuals who obtain a CLP before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] are not required to comply with this subpart if they obtain a CDL within 360 days after obtaining a CLP.
(2) Individuals who obtain a CLP on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] will be required to comply with this subpart.
(d) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has received training qualifying him or her to take the skills test for a CDL and/or endorsement is not required to obtain such training again before reapplying for a CDL or endorsement.
(e) A CDL holder who has been disqualified from operating a CMV under § 383.51(b) through (e) of this chapter, must complete the refresher training requirements of § 380.625.
(a) The definitions in parts 383 and 384 of this subchapter apply to this subpart, except where otherwise stated.
(b) As used in this subpart:
(1) Taking the CDL skills test required to receive the initial Class A or Class B CDL;
(2) Taking the CDL skills test required to upgrade to a Class A or Class B CDL; or
(3) Taking the CDL knowledge and skills test required to obtain a passenger or school bus endorsement, or the CDL knowledge test required to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement.
(1) Has at least 1 year of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the same endorsement; or
(2) Has at least 1 year of experience as a BTW CMV instructor; and
(3) Meets all applicable State training requirements for CMV instructors.
(a) A person who wishes to obtain a CDL that would allow him/her to operate a Class A or B CMV in interstate or intrastate commerce must successfully complete driver training from a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry (TPR). A person who intends to operate a CMV for which a Class A CDL is required must complete the curriculum outlined in § 380.613 and a person who intends to operate a CMV for which a Class B CDL is required must complete the curriculum outlined in § 380.615.
(b) A person who wishes to obtain a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement on his or her CDL must successfully complete the appropriate training from a training provider listed on the TPR. A
(c) A CDL holder who is disqualified from operating a CMV under § 383.51(b) through (e) of this chapter, must successfully complete refresher training from a training provider listed on the TPR. Refresher training must meet the curriculum outlined in § 380.625.
(a) Entities seeking to be listed on the Training Provider Registry must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of subpart G of this part.
(b) Entities must attest that they meet the requirements of this part.
(c) Entities must, upon request, supply documentary evidence to FMCSA or its authorized representatives so the Agency can verify compliance with these requirements.
(a) Class A CDL applicants must successfully complete the Class A CDL curriculum outlined in paragraph (b) of this section. There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for theory training, but the training provider must cover all the topics set forth in the curriculum in paragraph (b) of this section. Applicants must complete a minimum of 30 hours of training in BTW driving with a minimum of 10 hours spent driving on a range and either 10 hours driving on a public road; or 10 public road trips (each no less than 50 minutes in duration). The training provider will determine how the remaining 10 hours of BTW training will be spent (
(b)
(1)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(a) Class B CDL applicants must successfully complete the Class B CDL curriculum outlined in paragraph (b) of this section. There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for theory training, but the training provider must cover all the topics in the curriculum set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. Applicants must successfully complete a minimum of 15 hours of BTW training with a minimum of 7 hours of public road driving. Training providers may determine how the remaining 8 hours of BTW training are spent, as long as the range curriculum, as set forth below, is covered. The mandatory minimum hours of BTW training must be conducted in a CMV for which a Class B CDL would be required.
(b)
(1)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(iv)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(2)
(i)
(ii) Straight line backing. Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper techniques for performing various straight line backing maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(a) This section describes the training requirements and curriculum that a CMV driver seeking a passenger (P) endorsement on his or her CDL must successfully complete in order to receive the P endorsement.
(b) There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for any portion of this training, but the training provider must cover all the topics identified in paragraph (d).
(c) The training must be conducted in a representative vehicle for the P endorsement.
(d)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(Β) Additionally, driver-trainees must receive instruction in procedures, as applicable, in security-related inspections, including inspections for unusual wires or other abnormal visible materials, interior and exterior luggage compartments, packages or luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or vehicle tampering.
(C) Driver-trainees must receive instruction in cycling-accessible lifts and procedures for inspecting them for functionality and defects.
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(Α) Proper methods for handling passenger baggage and containers to avoid worker, passenger, and non-passenger (
(Β) Procedures for visually inspecting baggage and containers for prohibited items such as hazardous materials.
(C) Proper methods for handling and securing passenger baggage and containers, as applicable.
(D) Proper handling and securement of devices associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, including oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other associated apparatuses.
(E) Identifying prohibited and acceptable materials such as Class 1 (explosives), Hazardous Materials, articles other than Class 1 (explosive) materials, Division 6.1 (poisonous) or Division 2.3 (poisonous gas), Class 7 (radioactive) materials as specified in 49 CFR part 177 subpart E and removing prohibited materials as appropriate.
(viii)
(ix)
(A) Proper procedures for safe loading and unloading of passengers prior to departure, including rules concerning standing passengers and the Standee Line (49 CFR 392.62).
(B) Procedures for dealing with disruptive passengers.
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B) Additionally, driver-trainees must demonstrate their knowledge of procedures, as applicable, in security-related inspections, including inspections for unusual wires or other abnormal visible materials, interior and exterior luggage compartments, packages or luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or vehicle tampering.
(C) Driver-trainees must know how to operate cycling-accessible lifts and the procedures for inspecting them for functionality and defects.
(iv)
(A) Properly handle passenger baggage and containers to avoid worker, passenger, and non-passenger related injuries and property damage;
(B) Visually inspect baggage and containers for prohibited items such as hazardous materials;
(C) Properly handle and secure devices associated with ADA compliance including oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other associated apparatuses; and
(D) Identify prohibited and acceptable Class 1 (explosives), Hazardous Materials, articles other than Class 1 (explosive) materials, Division 6.1 (poisonous) or Division 2.3 (poisonous gas), Class 7 (radioactive) materials as specified in 49 CFR part 177 subpart E and remove prohibited materials as appropriate.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(a) This section sets forth the training requirements and curriculum that a CMV driver seeking a school bus endorsement (S) on his or her CDL must successfully complete in order to receive the S endorsement.
(b) There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for any portion of this training, but the training provider must cover all the topics identified in paragraph (d).
(c) The training must be conducted in a representative vehicle for the S endorsement involved.
(d)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(a) This section sets forth the training requirements and curriculum that a CMV driver seeking a hazardous materials endorsement (H) on his or her CDL must successfully complete in order to receive the H endorsement.
(b) There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for theory training, but the training provider must cover all the topics in the curriculum in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(B) Driver-trainees must learn methods specifically designed to reduce cargo tank rollovers including, but not limited to, vehicle design and performance, load effects, highway factors, and driver factors.
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(a) This section sets forth the training requirements and curriculum that a CDL holder who is disqualified from operating a CMV, must complete in order to reapply for a CDL.
(b) There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for any portion of the curriculum, but the training provider must cover all the topics in the curriculum in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) The training must be conducted in a representative vehicle consistent with the driver's CDL Class and/or endorsement for which the driver is reapplying.
(d)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
The rules in this subpart establish the eligibility requirements for listing on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR). Drivers seeking ELDT may use only providers listed on the TPR to comply with this part.
(a) To be eligible for listing on the TPR, an entity must:
(1) Follow a curriculum that meets the criteria set forth in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, 380.623, or 380.625, as applicable;
(2) Utilize facilities that meet the criteria set forth in § 380.709;
(3) Utilize vehicles that meet the criteria set forth in § 380.711;
(4) Utilize driver training instructors that meet the criteria set forth in § 380.713;
(5) Allow FMCSA or its authorized representative to audit or investigate the training provider's operations to ensure that the provider meets the criteria set forth in this section.
(6) Submit to FMCSA an Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report and attest that the training provider meets all the applicable requirements of this section to obtain a
(7) Create and maintain driver-trainee records of completion and/or withdrawal in accordance with § 380.725.
(b) When a provider meets the requirements of §§ 380.703 and 380.707, FMCSA will issue the provider a unique TPR number and add the provider's name and contact information to the TPR Web site.
(a) Training providers must require that all accepted applicants for public road training meet minimum U.S. DOT regulations—as well as other Federal, State, and/or local laws—related to drug screening, controlled substances testing, age, medical certification, licensing, and driving record.
(b) Behind-the-wheel (BTW) driving (range and public road), must include the required driving maneuvers in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, or 380.625, as applicable.
(c) Theory and range instruction must include all elements identified in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, 380.623, or 380.625, as applicable.
(d) Providers that train more than three driver-trainees annually must provide training materials to each driver-trainee that address the applicable curriculum identified in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, 380.623, or 380.625. Providers that train three or fewer driver-trainees are not subject to this requirement.
(e) Separate training providers may deliver the theory and BTW portions of the training.
(a) The training provider's classroom and range facilities must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and/or local statutes and regulations.
(b) Training providers who teach the range portion of the curriculum must have an instructor present on site to demonstrate applicable skills and correct deficiencies of individual students.
(c) The range must be free of obstructions, enable the driver to maneuver safely and free from interference from other vehicles and hazards, and have adequate sight lines.
(a) All vehicles used in the behind-the-wheel (BTW) range training must be in safe mechanical condition.
(b) Vehicles used for BTW road training must comply with applicable Federal and State safety requirements.
(c) Training vehicles must be in the same class (A or B) and type (bus or truck) that driver-trainees intend to operate for their CDL skills test.
(a) Theory training providers must utilize instructors who are either an experienced driver or a theory instructor as defined in § 380.605.
(b) BTW training providers must utilize experienced drivers as defined in § 380.605. BTW training instructors, during the two years prior to engaging in BTW instruction, must not have had any CMV-related convictions for the offenses identified in § 383.51(b) through (e). Training providers must utilize only public road BTW instructors whose driving record meets applicable Federal and State requirements.
Driver-trainees must successfully complete a course of instruction that meets the applicable entry-level driver training curriculum requirements.
(a) Training providers must use assessments (in written or electronic format) to demonstrate driver-trainees' proficiency in the knowledge objectives in the theory portion of each unit of instruction in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, 380.623, or 380.625. The driver-trainee must receive an overall score of 80% or above on the assessment.
(b) Training instructors must assess driver-trainee proficiency on the range in pre-trip inspections, fundamental vehicle control skills, and routine driving procedures for the appropriate vehicle in accordance with the curricula in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, or 380.625.
(c) Training instructors must evaluate a driver-trainee's proficiency in BTW driving skills on a public road. The instructor must observe specified driving maneuvers required in § 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621, or 380.625, as applicable. BTW public road assessments must be administered in a vehicle of the class (A or B) and type (bus or truck) that the driver-trainees will operate for the CDL skills test.
After an individual successfully completes training administered by a provider on the TPR, that provider must, by close of the next business day after the driver-trainee completes the training, upload the training certification including the following:
(a) Driver-trainee name, CDL/CLP number, and State of licensure;
(b) Vehicle class and/or endorsement training the driver-trainee received;
(c) Name of the training provider and its unique TPR identification number; and
(d) Date of successful training completion.
(a) To be eligible for continued listing on the TPR, a provider must:
(1) Meet the requirements of this subpart and the applicable requirements of elements of § 380.703 of this chapter.
(2) Biennially provide an updated Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report to FMCSA.
(3) Report to FMCSA changes to key information, as identified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, submitted under § 380.703 within 30 days of the change.
(i) Key information is defined as training provider name, address, phone number, type of training offered, training provider status, and any change in State licensure, certification, or accreditation status.
(ii) Changes must be reported by submitting an updated Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Identification Report to FMCSA.
(4) Be licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of each State where training is provided.
(5) Maintain documentation of State licensure, registration, or certification verifying that the provider is authorized to provide training in that State, if applicable.
(6) Allow an audit or investigation of the training provider to be completed by FMCSA or its authorized representative, if requested.
(7) Ensure that all required documentation is available upon request to FMCSA or its authorized representative. The provider must submit this documentation within 48 hours of the request.
FMCSA may remove a provider from the TPR when a provider fails to meet or maintain the qualifications established by this subpart or the requirements of other State and Federal regulations applicable to the provider. If FMCSA removes a provider from the TPR, all training certificates issued after
(a) The factors FMCSA may consider for removing a provider from the TPR include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The provider fails to comply with the requirements for continued listing on the TPR, as described in § 380.719.
(2) The provider denies FMCSA or its authorized representatives the opportunity to conduct an audit or investigation of its training operations.
(3) The audit or investigation conducted by FMCSA or its authorized representatives identifies material deficiencies, pertaining to the training provider's program, operations, or eligibility.
(4) The provider falsely claims to be licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in each State where training is provided.
(5) The SDLA CDL exam passage rate of those individuals who complete the provider's training is abnormally low. FMCSA is not establishing a minimum required passage rate, but will use this information in the context of State norms.
(b) In instances of fraud or other criminal behavior by a training provider in which driver-trainees have knowingly participated, FMCSA reserves the right, on a case-by-case basis, to retroactively deem invalid training certificates that were issued by training providers removed from the TPR.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) If the Director finds that FMCSA has relied on erroneous information to propose removal of a training provider from the TPR, the Director will withdraw the notice of proposed removal and notify the provider of the withdrawal in writing.
(ii) If the Director finds FMCSA has not relied on erroneous information in proposing removal, the Director will affirm the notice of proposed removal and notify the provider in writing of the determination. No later than 60 days after the date the Director affirms the notice of proposed removal, the provider must comply with this subpart and correct the deficiencies identified in the notice of proposed removal as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) If the provider does not respond in writing within 30 days of the date of issuance of a notice of proposed removal, the removal becomes effective immediately and the provider will be removed from the TPR.
(2)
(ii) If the provider fails to complete the proposed corrective action(s) within the 60-day period, the provider will be removed from the TPR. The Director will notify the provider in writing of the removal.
(3) At any time before a notice of proposed removal from the TPR becomes final, the recipient of the notice of proposed removal and the Director may resolve the matter by mutual agreement.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(ii) No sooner than 30 days after the date of a provider's involuntary removal from the TPR, the provider may apply to the Director to be reinstated. In the case of an involuntarily removal, the provider must submit documentation showing completion of any corrective action(s) identified in the notice of proposed removal or final notice of removal, as applicable.
(a)
(b) All training providers on the TPR must retain the following:
(1) The training provider's policy setting forth eligibility requirements for driver-trainee applicants related to controlled substances testing, medical certification, licensing, and driving records.
(2) Instructor qualification documentation indicating driving and/or training experience, as applicable, for each instructor and copies of commercial driver's licenses and applicable endorsements held by behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructors.
(3) The amount of time generally allocated to theory and BTW (range and public road) training, as applicable.
(4) The instructor-driver-trainee ratio during each portion of the curriculum; the number of vehicles, and a description of range and lesson plans for theory and BTW (range and public road) training, as applicable.
(5) Names of all driver-trainees who completed or withdrew from instruction in the required curriculum and who passed or failed the training provider's assessment of theory and, if applicable, BTW (range and public road) training.
(c)
49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301
(a) * * *
(8) A holder of a CDL who is disqualified as a result of a conviction of offenses under § 383.51(b), (c), (d), or (e) must not be fully reinstated to drive a CMV until he or she has successfully completed the refresher training curriculum in § 380.625 of this chapter. Limited privileges to drive a CMV are to be reinstated solely in order to allow the driver to complete the refresher training curriculum.
(a) * * *
(3) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], a person must successfully complete the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before taking the skills test for a Class A or B CDL or a passenger or school bus endorsement or the knowledge test for a hazardous materials endorsement. The training must be administered by a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry.
(4) Except for driver trainees seeking the H endorsement, driver-trainees who have successfully completed the theory portion of the training must complete the skills portion within 360 days.
(b) * * *
(11) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], a person must successfully complete the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before taking the skills test for an initial Class A or B CDL, a CDL with a passenger or school bus endorsement, or knowledge test for a hazardous materials endorsement. The training must be administered by a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry.
(e) * * *
(3) Comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement;
(4) Surrender the previous CDL; and
(5) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], a person must successfully complete the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before taking the skills test for upgrading a CDL from one class to another; or upgrading a CDL with a passenger or school bus endorsement; or knowledge test for hazardous materials endorsement issued on a CDL. The training must be administered by a provider on the Training Provider Registry.
(b) * * *
(3) Initiate and complete a check of the applicant's driving record to ensure that the person is not subject to any disqualification under § 383.51, or any license disqualification under State law, does not have a driver's license from more than one State or jurisdiction, and has completed the required training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter. The record check must include, but is not limited to, the following:
(ii) A check with CDLIS to determine whether the driver applicant has already been issued a CDL, whether the applicant's license has been revoked or canceled, whether the applicant has been disqualified from operating a CMV, and, if the CDL was issued on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], whether an applicant for a Class A and B CDL or a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement has completed the training required by subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter from a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry;
(10) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the State must not conduct a skills test of an applicant for a Class A or B CDL, or a passenger or school bus endorsement until the State verifies that the applicant successfully completed the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter from a training provider listed on the Training Provider Registry.
(e) * * *
(8) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], require a person with a CDL upgrading from one class of CDL to another or upgrading a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement to successfully complete the training required in subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter from a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry.
(h)
(a) * * *
(10) The restriction(s) placed on the driver from operating certain equipment or vehicles, if any, indicated as follows:
(i) L for No Air brake equipped CMV;
(ii) Z for No Full air brake equipped CMV;
(iii) E for No Manual transmission equipped CMV;
(iv) O for No Tractor-trailer CMV;
(v) M for No Class A passenger vehicle;
(vi) N for No Class A and B passenger vehicle;
(vii) K for Intrastate only;
(viii) V for Medical variance;
(ix) R for Refresher training only; and
(x) At the discretion of the State, additional codes for additional restrictions, as long as each such restriction code is fully explained on the front or back of the CDL document.
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301,
(a) Beginning on [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] a State must follow the procedures prescribed in § 383.73 of this subchapter for verifying that a person received training from a provider listed on the Training Provider Registry before issuing an initial Class A or B CDL; a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement; upgrade a CDL from one class to another; or upgrade a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement.
(b)(1) A State may issue a CDL to individuals who obtain an initial CLP before [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] who have not complied with subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter so long as they obtain a CDL within 360 days after obtaining an initial CLP.
(2) A State may not issue a CDL to individuals who obtain a CLP on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] unless they comply with subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter.
(j) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in effect as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], but not later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary presentation of final rules.
This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in this Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-87. A companion document, the
For effective dates see the separate documents, which follow.
The analyst whose name appears in the table below in relation to the FAR case. Please cite FAC 2005-87 and the specific FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005-87 amends the FAR as follows:
This final rule amends the FAR to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to include in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, to the extent practicable, identification of any immediate owner or subsidiary, and all predecessors of an offeror that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years. The objective is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation before awarding a Federal contract.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Editorial changes are made at FAR 4.1703(a)(1), 22.1904(b)(1), 25.1102(d)(3), 36.607(b), 52.212-3(h), 52.212-3(p) and (q), and (p) and (q) of Alternate I, 52.212-5(c)(8), (e)(1)(xv), (e)(1)(ii)(N) of Alternate II, and 52.213-4(b)(1)(ix).
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-87 is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005-87 is effective March 7, 2016 except for item I which is effective April 6, 2016.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to include in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), to the extent practicable, identification of any immediate owner or subsidiary, and all predecessors of an offeror that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years. The objective is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation before awarding a Federal contract.
Ms. Cecelia Davis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-219-0202, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-87, FAR Case 2013-020.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the
The final rule implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) with regard to Federal contracts. Section 852 requires that the FAPIIS include, to the extent practicable, information on any parent, subsidiary, or successor entities to a corporation in a manner designed to give the acquisition officials using the database a comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation in carrying out Federal contracts and grants. This final rule addresses the collection of information with regard to offerors that are responding to a solicitation for a Federal contract. The data on the immediate owner and direct subsidiaries of an entity will be available through FAPIIS, based on the data obtained from offerors in response to the FAR provision 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror, which was published in the
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:
There were no changes made in the final rule in response to the public comments received.
Based on determinations by the FAR signatories (DoD, GSA, and NASA) and the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1905, 1906, and 1907, this rule applies to all solicitations and resultant contracts, including contracts and subcontracts for acquisitions in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, and contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items, (including commercially available off-the-shelf items). Because the emphasis of section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) is to provide acquisition officials using FAPIIS with a comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation in carrying out Federal contracts, it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to waive the applicability of section 852 to contracts and subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, or for the acquisition of commercial items (including COTS items).
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This case implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The objective of this rule is to provide acquisition officials using the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) a comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation in carrying out Federal contracts. The legal basis for the rule is section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239).
No comments were received from the public relative to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
It is not expected that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The data on immediate owner and direct subsidiaries of an entity will be available through FAPIIS, based on the data obtained from offerors in response to the FAR provision 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror, that requires this information for the CAGE code. The Federal Government received offers from approximately 413,800 unique vendors in FY 2011. Approximately 275,900 of these offers were from unique small businesses, which will be required to respond to the proposed provision.
The rule requires approximately one submission per year, with an estimated average of .1 preparation hours per response. The response time will be less for most respondents, who will only be required to check a box. Only those respondents that check “is” will have to provide a minimal amount of information (CAGE Code and legal name of all predecessors that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years). A mid-level professional skill would be required in some instances to know whether the entity is a successor, as defined in the rule.
There are no exemptions from the rule for small entities, because the law does not provide for any such exemption. However, the final rule limits the review of predecessor entities to three years, and only requires information relating to the most recent predecessor, if any.
DoD, GSA and NASA did not identify any significant alternatives that would reduce impact on small business and still accomplish the objectives of the statute and the polices.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The rule contains information collection requirements. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 9000-0189, titled: Identification of Predecessors.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 4, 9, 22, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) * * *
(6) 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror.
(d) Insert the provision at 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror, in all solicitations that include the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting.
(a)(1) Before awarding a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting officer shall review the performance and integrity information available in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), (available at
(2) In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 2313(d)(3), FAPIIS also identifies—
(i) An affiliate that is an immediate owner or subsidiary of the offeror, if any (see 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror); and
(ii) All predecessors of the offeror that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years (see 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror).
(b)(1) When making a responsibility determination, the contracting officer shall consider all the information available through FAPIIS with regard to the offeror and any immediate owner, predecessor, or subsidiary identified for that offeror in FAPIIS, as well as other past performance information on the offeror (see subpart 42.15).
(2) For evaluation of information available through FAPIIS relating to an affiliate of the offeror, see 9.104-3(c).
(3) For source selection evaluations of past performance, see 15.305(a)(2). Contracting officers shall use sound judgment in determining the weight and relevance of the information contained in FAPIIS and how it relates to the present acquisition.
(4) Since FAPIIS may contain information on any of the offeror's previous contracts and information covering a five-year period, some of that information may not be relevant to a determination of present responsibility,
(5) Because FAPIIS is a database that provides information about prime contractors, the contracting officer posts information required to be posted about a subcontractor, such as trafficking in persons violations, to the record of the prime contractor (see 42.1503(h)(1)(v)). The prime contractor has the opportunity to post in FAPIIS any mitigating factors. The contracting officer shall consider any mitigating factors posted in FAPIIS by the prime contractor, such as degree of compliance by the prime contractor with the terms of FAR clause 52.222-50.
(c) In making the determination of responsibility, the contracting officer shall consider information available through FAPIIS (see 9.104-6) with regard to the offeror and any immediate owner, predecessor, or subsidiary identified for that offeror in FAPIIS, including information that is linked to FAPIIS such as from SAM, and PPIRS, as well as any other relevant past performance information on the offeror (see 9.104-1(c) and subpart 42.15). In addition, the contracting officer should use the following sources of information to support such determinations:
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
____ (ii) 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror.
As prescribed in 4.1804(d), insert the following provision:
(a)
(1) An identifier assigned to entities located in the United States and its outlying areas by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch to identify a commercial or government entity, or
(2) An identifier assigned by a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by NATO's Support Agency (NSPA) to entities located outside the United States and its outlying areas that DLA Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch records and maintains in the CAGE master file. This type of code is known as an NCAGE code.
(b) The Offeror represents that it □ is or □ is not a successor to a predecessor that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years.
(c) If the Offeror has indicated “is” in paragraph (b) of this provision, enter the following information for all predecessors that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years (if more than one predecessor, list in reverse chronological order):
Predecessor CAGE code: ____ (or mark “Unknown”).
Predecessor legal name: ____.
(
(End of provision)
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(r)
(1) The Offeror represents that it □ is or □ is not a successor to a predecessor that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years.
(2) If the Offeror has indicated “is” in paragraph (r)(1) of this provision, enter the following information for all predecessors that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years (if more than one predecessor, list in reverse chronological order):
Predecessor CAGE code: ____ (or mark “Unknown”).
Predecessor legal name: ____.
(
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
This document makes an amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in order to make an editorial change.
Ms. Hada Flowers, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-87, Technical Amendments.
In order to update certain elements in 48 CFR parts 4, 22, 25, 36, and 52 this document makes editorial changes to the FAR.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 4, 22, 25, 36, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(p)
(1) The Offeror represents that it □ has or □ does not have an immediate owner. If the Offeror has more than one immediate owner (such as a joint venture), then the Offeror shall respond to paragraph (2) and if applicable, paragraph (3) of this provision for each participant in the joint venture.
(2) If the Offeror indicates “has” in paragraph (p)(1) of this provision, enter the following information:
Immediate owner CAGE code: ____.
Immediate owner legal name: ____.
Is the immediate owner owned or controlled by another entity: □ Yes or □ No.
(3) If the Offeror indicates “yes” in paragraph (p)(2) of this provision, indicating that the immediate owner is owned or controlled by another entity, then enter the following information:
Highest-level owner CAGE code: ____.
Highest-level owner legal name: ____.
(q)
(i) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or
(ii) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
(2) The Offeror represents that—
(i) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and
(ii) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(8) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (MAR 2016).
(e)(1) * * *
(xv) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (MAR 2016).
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(N) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (MAR 2016).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (MAR 2016) (Applies when 52.222-6 or 52.222-41 are in the contract and performance in whole or in part is in the United States (the 50 States and the District of Columbia)).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Small Entity Compliance Guide.
This document is issued under the joint authority of DOD, GSA, and NASA. This
March 7, 2016.
For clarification of content, contact the analyst whose name appears in the table below. Please cite FAC 2005-87 and the FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005-87 amends the FAR as follows:
This final rule amends the FAR to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to include in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, to the extent practicable, identification of any immediate owner or subsidiary, and all predecessors of an offeror that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years. The objective is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance and integrity of the corporation before awarding a Federal contract.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Editorial changes are made at FAR 4.1703(a)(1), 22.1904(b)(1), 25.1102(d)(3), 36.607(b), 52.212-3(h), 52.212-3(p) and (q), and (p) and (q) of Alternate I, 52.212-5(c)(8), (e)(1)(xv), (e)(1)(ii)(N) of Alternate II, and 52.213-4(b)(1)(ix).
(b) Other executive departments and agencies (agencies) that impose restrictive housing shall review the DOJ Report to determine whether corresponding changes at their facilities should be made in light of the policy recommendations and guiding principles in the DOJ Report.
(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(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 |