Page Range | 869-1113 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 869 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 924 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
81 FR 948 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Mashpee Wampanoag | |
81 FR 973 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 903 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 915 - Procurement List; Addition | |
81 FR 941 - National Institute of Mental Health: Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 942 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 942 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 922 - Notification of an Open Meeting of the National Defense University Board of Visitors (BOV) | |
81 FR 882 - Substantiation Requirement for Certain Contributions; Withdrawal | |
81 FR 935 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory Board | |
81 FR 881 - Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Notice of Eighth Meeting | |
81 FR 989 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Railroad Retirement Board (RRB))-Match Number 1006 | |
81 FR 908 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013; and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review | |
81 FR 990 - Twenty Five Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 214/EUROCAE WG-78: Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services | |
81 FR 903 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
81 FR 907 - Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
81 FR 998 - MyVA Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting: Amended | |
81 FR 961 - Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico | |
81 FR 947 - Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge, Accomack County, VA; Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
81 FR 943 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Enhanced Security Procedures at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport | |
81 FR 991 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
81 FR 943 - Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance | |
81 FR 967 - Request for Information; Comment Request; Department of Labor Research and Evaluation Plan for 2016 | |
81 FR 970 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Agreement Approval Process for Use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs | |
81 FR 936 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
81 FR 970 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training (OASVET); Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; VETS' Competitive Grant Programs Reporting | |
81 FR 973 - Request To Amend a License To Import Radioactive Waste | |
81 FR 902 - The Scotts Co. and Monsanto Co.; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Creeping Bentgrass Genetically Engineered for Resistance to Glyphosate | |
81 FR 993 - 30-Day Notice of Application for New Information Collection Request | |
81 FR 884 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table | |
81 FR 945 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Airspace Waiver Program | |
81 FR 944 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service Mental Health Certification | |
81 FR 936 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 915 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletions | |
81 FR 916 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
81 FR 897 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery | |
81 FR 937 - Use of Nucleic Acid Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus From Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
81 FR 917 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 910 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 910 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Socioeconomics of Commercial Fishers and For Hire Diving and Fishing Operations in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary | |
81 FR 914 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fisheries Certificate of Origin | |
81 FR 997 - Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National Cemetery | |
81 FR 913 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
81 FR 912 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 911 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 992 - Jackson County, Mo.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
81 FR 924 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Loan Cancellation in the Federal Perkins Loan Program | |
81 FR 972 - Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 885 - Pipeline Safety: Notice of Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 975 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 976 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 974 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 977 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 940 - Over-the-Counter Sunscreens: Safety and Effectiveness Data; Draft Guidance for Industry; Extension of Comment Period | |
81 FR 930 - Public Service Company of New Hampshire; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments | |
81 FR 927 - Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 933 - Heartland Consumers Power District; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 931 - Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; Maine Office of the Public Advocate; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate; Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers; Vermont Department of Public Service; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Associated Industries of Massachusetts; The Energy Consortium; Power Options, Inc.; and the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission LLC d/b/a NextEra; NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Transco, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 932 - Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; Maine Office of the Public Advocate; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate; Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers; Vermont Department of Public Service; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Associated Industries of Massachusetts; The Energy Consortium; Power Options, Inc.; and the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission LLC d/b/a NextEra; NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Transco, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 928 - Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; Maine Office of the Public Advocate; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate; Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers; Vermont Department of Public Service; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Associated Industries of Massachusetts; The Energy Consortium; Power Options, Inc.; and the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission LLC d/b/a NextEra; NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Transco, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 935 - Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed San Elizario Crossing Project | |
81 FR 925 - Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Presidio Border Crossing Project | |
81 FR 934 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 933 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 922 - 36(b)(5)(C) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 937 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
81 FR 938 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 920 - 36(b)(5)(C) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 966 - Notice of Proposed Renewal of Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1035-0003, Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds From Trust Status | |
81 FR 942 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 989 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 14.11(i) To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
81 FR 987 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
81 FR 978 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Europe ETF, First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Asia Pacific ETF, First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF, and the First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Developed International ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund III | |
81 FR 987 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc. | |
81 FR 962 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
81 FR 926 - Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, KS; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 925 - City of Colton, California; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 927 - City of Anaheim, California; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 927 - Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; Maine Office of the Public Advocate; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate; Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers; Vermont Department of Public Service; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Associated Industries of Massachusetts; The Energy Consortium; Power Options, Inc.; and the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission LLC d/b/a NextEra; NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Transco, LLC, Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 932 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 928 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 929 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 991 - Notice of Extension for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Airport, Angoon, Alaska | |
81 FR 978 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 978 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 971 - OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2016 | |
81 FR 972 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
81 FR 995 - Proposed Information Collection (Voice of Veteran Surveys, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (National Cemetery Administration, Veterans Benefits Affairs, Veterans Health Administration), Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Reliance Upon VA, Bereaved Family Member Satisfaction Survey, Nation-Wide Customer Satisfaction Surveys (Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients), Veterans Health Benefits Handbook Satisfaction Survey, Veterans Transportation Service Data Collection, Center for Verification and Evaluation Site Inspections, Post Engagement, Awards & Return on Investment, Center for Verification and Evaluation Verification Survey) Activity: Comment Request | |
81 FR 869 - Procedures Related to Commission Views | |
81 FR 887 - Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska | |
81 FR 886 - Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska | |
81 FR 961 - Notice of Public Meeting; Wyoming Resource Advisory Council | |
81 FR 962 - National Park System Advisory Board; Charter Renewal | |
81 FR 963 - Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona | |
81 FR 992 - 30-Day Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection | |
81 FR 945 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
81 FR 879 - Notice of Intent To Review Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Boundary | |
81 FR 883 - Federal Travel Regulation; Updating the Incidental Expenses Definition and the Laundry, Cleaning, and Pressing of Clothing Policy | |
81 FR 1027 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines | |
81 FR 999 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Downlist the West Indian Manatee, and Proposed Rule To Reclassify the West Indian Manatee as Threatened |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Special Trustee for American Indians Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
In rule document 2015-30881, appearing on pages 80242-80247, in the Issue of Thursday, December 24, 2015, make the following correction:
Beginning in the second column, under the heading
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is issuing a set of final rules establishing the Commission's process for developing views to the Secretary of State on certain international mail matters pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1). Relative to the proposed rules, the changes are minor in nature.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 21, 2015, the Commission issued proposed rules describing general procedures related to the development of the Commission's views on certain international mail matters pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1).
In addition to revising the longstanding approach to establishing domestic mail rates and classifications, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 amended several statutory provisions concerning international mail matters.
A companion provision requires the Secretary of State to ensure that each treaty, convention, or amendment concluded under section 407(b) is consistent with the Commission's views unless the Secretary makes a written determination that ensuring such consistency is not in the Nation's foreign policy or national security interest. 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(2). Such a written determination must be provided to the Commission, along with a full explanation of the reasons, but portions of the determination may be designated confidential for reasons of foreign policy or national security.
The introduction of a formal advisory role for the Commission in this area was a significant change from previous law, as previous law did not require the Secretary of State to request the Commission's views in carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities.
Pursuant to the directive in section 407(c)(1), the Secretary of State requested—and the Commission provided—views on certain proposals submitted for consideration at the quadrennial Universal Postal Union (UPU) Congresses
The proposed rules describe general procedures associated with the development of the Commission's views on certain proposals submitted for consideration at UPU Congresses and related meetings. They are patterned on the approach followed in Docket No.
The proposed rules establish a docket for each UPU Congress and related meetings to serve as an administrative mechanism for soliciting and receiving public comments and posting related notices and documents. Each docket will be established on or about 150 days before the date a UPU Congress is scheduled to convene. As in Docket No. PI2012-1, the Commission will seek comments on the general principles that should guide the Commission in the formation of its views. The proposed rules also allow comments on specific proposals to the extent such proposals are publicly available. Comment deadlines will be established on a case-by-case basis and based on the Commission's assessment of how much time can be allowed, consistent with timely submission of its views to the Secretary of State.
The Commission received initial comments from Joyce Dillard, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), the Public Representative, and the Postal Service.
• The applicability of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedural requirements to views;
• the scope of comments and scope of Commission views, particularly with regard to the proposed definition of modern market regulation;
• several other matters related to the comment procedure, including the absence of an affirmative right to file reply comments;
• the definition of views;
• the Commission's option to suspend or forego solicitation of comments, including the proposed standard for exercising this option; and
• the availability of proposals and the Commission's views.
Having considered the comments received, the Commission adopts final rules that reflect several revisions to the proposed rules in response to comments as well as several other minor changes. The latter include revisions to reflect the Commission's intention to designate future dockets established pursuant to 39 CFR part 3017 as “International Mail” (IM) dockets, instead of “Public Inquiry” (PI) dockets, and to refer to “comments” instead of “public comments.” The Commission used the IM docket designation prior to the enactment of the PAEA for agency action related to preparation of a series of annual reports to Congress on international mail financial results. This change, which makes it easier for interested persons to locate international documents on the Commission's Web site, requires minor conforming changes to several of the proposed sections of part 3017.
FedEx asserts that Congress has carefully avoided the procedural dilemma that combining regulatory and executive functions poses by deliberately creating a bifurcated decision-making process in 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1) and (c)(2).
FedEx contends that
FedEx contends that the
UPS supports FedEx's proposal to amend the proposed rules and incorporate APA notice and comment procedures on grounds that the Commission's views meet the definition of a rule under the APA because they are agency statements interpreting or prescribing law or policy. Corrected UPS Reply Comments at 8 n.6. UPS also asserts that the Commission has an important role under section 407(c)(1), noting that the Commission's views should be crucial in determining the Secretary of State's posture in international postal negotiations.
The Public Representative and the Postal Service assert that characterization of the Commission's views as a rule under the APA is incorrect.
The Public Representative also considers FedEx's reliance on
The Postal Service asserts that FedEx's assertion that the Commission providing its views to the Secretary of State constitutes issuance of an agency rule pursuant to the APA is simply wrong. Postal Service Reply Comments at 4. It contends that FedEx's discussion of the definition of rule relies on only part of the definition, and that a complete understanding of the APA definition of rule clearly establishes that the views of the Commission are not a rule subject to the APA rulemaking requirements.
The Postal Service states that a rule as defined by the APA implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553, rulemakings generally require that an agency publish a notice concerning the intended rulemaking in the
FedEx and UPS contend that views are rules as defined by the APA, and as a result, FedEx and UPS assert that the Commission should amend the proposed rules to ensure that the APA's notice and comment requirements are incorporated into the final rules. FedEx Comments at 8-12; Corrected UPS
Determining whether views are rules under the APA begins with examination of the function the Commission performs in developing views and the statutory authority for the exercise of that function. With respect to function, the plain language of 39 U.S.C. 407 makes clear that Commission views are an interagency advisory communication prepared at the request, and for the sole consideration of, the Secretary of State prior to his/her conclusion of treaties, conventions, or amendments addressing certain international postal rates and classifications.
The advisory, interagency nature of the communication and the subject matter—international rates and classifications—also materially distinguish the Commission's views from the conventional rulemaking activity of ratemaking. The Commission's domestic rate and classification rulemakings typically are not purely advisory in nature, nor are they designed for the sole consideration of the Secretary of State. Instead, these rulemakings are intended to have binding effect on those who are regulated (or engage in activities regulated) by the agency conducting the rulemaking. However, the Secretary of State pursuant to title 39 exercises the primary authority for the conduct of foreign policy with respect to international postal and delivery services, including the determination of U.S. positions in negotiations with foreign governments and international bodies.
The Commission provides advisory views to the Secretary of State, which are distinct from rules under the APA that directly implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy with respect to the application of future rates, wages, or prices. Commission views do not prescribe, establish, or enforce international rates or classifications. These considerations all support the conclusion that views sent to the Secretary of State are a statutory responsibility that falls outside the APA's definition of a rule.
Even if views were considered rules under the APA, the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply. First, under the APA, substantive legislative rules are the only rules subject to the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.
The Commission's views are not substantive legislative rules. They do not grant rights or impose obligations, nor do they produce other significant effects on private interests; instead, they simply advise the Secretary of State. They have not been and will not be published in the
Second, views are also exempt from APA notice and comment requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as an agency action involving a foreign affairs function. In considering the applicability of the foreign affairs exception, the initial question is whether a view involves a foreign affairs function. Several factors support the conclusion that this is the case with Commission views. For example, the Commission's responsibility for developing a view is lodged in 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1). The parent provision, 39 U.S.C. 407, is captioned “International postal arrangements.” Also, contextually, the plain language of 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1) establishes the requisite nexus to a foreign affairs function by providing that “before concluding any treaty, convention, or amendment” that establishes a rate for a market dominant product, the Secretary of State shall request the Commission's views. By definition, the Commission is advising the Secretary of State on matters directly related to foreign affairs—the terms of international postal treaties, conventions, and amendments.
As exemptions to the APA's procedural requirements are to be narrowly construed, the second question is whether a rulemaking would unduly interfere with the asserted foreign affairs function. If not, the exemption generally does not apply.
In practice, the development of the Commission's view occurs within an extremely compressed timetable. Given this practical reality, compliance with all APA procedural requirements would hamstring the Commission's ability to provide the Secretary of State with sound, timely views. A brief review of the process illustrates the difficulties.
First, development of a Commission view typically occurs in the context of a UPU Congress. The UPU is solely responsible for determining the distribution schedule for the proposals the Commission reviews. In light of different submission deadlines and the need for translation, typically the UPU does not make all proposals available at once, and often makes many proposals available only very near the start of a UPU Congress. In some cases, amendments to proposals are only made available immediately before the meeting at which the proposals are to be considered. In addition, verbal amendments may be proposed during deliberations.
Second, the Commission is unable to ensure the availability of the proposals to interested parties because the UPU does not make them publicly available.
Third, upon receipt of the proposals, development of views entails deliberations by the Commission and coordination of a view in time for the Secretary of State to have a meaningful opportunity to consider the Commission's advice. In cases when proposals are made available by the UPU with very little time for evaluation, the Commission will frequently provide its preliminary assessment verbally, following up later with a written view. Ensuring that interested persons have an opportunity to review all proposals—and responding to each concern as occurs in most rulemakings—would preclude timely preparation and submission of views to the Secretary of State.
Fourth, given the compressed timetable under which 39 U.S.C. 407(c) functions occur, waiting until 30 days after publication in the
The Postal Service notes that in Docket No. PI2012-1, the Commission solicited comments on the principles that should guide development of its views on the consistency of proposals with the standards and criteria of 39 U.S.C. 3622.
The Postal Service suggests that changes in these rates might be analogized to a Type 1 rate adjustment and proposes that the standards for Type 1 rate adjustments in 39 CFR 3010.11(d) be applied to UPU proposals.
UPS asserts that the Postal Service's proposed definition of modern rate regulation is inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. 407(c) and urges the Commission to reject it. Corrected UPS Reply Comments at 1. UPS observes that the issues raised by UPU proposals extend beyond the legality of terminal dues rates.
UPS also contends the Postal Service's proposal is at odds with how the Postal Service interpreted the Commission's authority in 2012, when the Postal Service stated that under section 407(c), the Commission is tasked with providing its view on whether proposals are consistent with the 39 U.S.C. 3622 objectives and factors.
UPS asserts that when the Commission considers the objectives and factors of 39 U.S.C. 3622 in evaluating UPU proposals, it is giving heed to the statutory language of 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1).
UPS also states that having empowered and required the Commission to craft regulations in conformance with section 3622, it is implausible that Congress would require that the Commission ignore section 3622 when evaluating UPU proposals.
FedEx agrees, in principle, with the Postal Service's assertion that the Commission's approach to reviewing proposed UPU rates and classifications for market dominant products should closely parallel the agency's review of rates and classifications for market dominant domestic products, but disagrees with the Postal Service on the implications of this observation for the proposed rules. FedEx Reply Comments at 1. FedEx disagrees with the Postal Service's conclusion that 39 CFR parts 3010 and 3020 prohibit commenters and the Commission from considering the consistency of relevant UPU proposals with title 39 requirements other than those explicitly mentioned in 39 CFR parts 3010 and 3020.
FedEx asserts that given the intense reconsideration of product definitions now underway at the UPU, it is hardly self-evident that the rates and classifications that will be proposed for consideration at the next UPU Congress should be considered analogous to Type 1 rate adjustments.
The Postal Service's proposed modification would also artificially detach the Commission's views from the underlying objectives and factors of modern rate regulation, which are the basis of the “standards and criteria established by the Commission under section 3622.” 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1). Moreover, the Postal Service's proposed analogy to Type 1 rate cases seemingly conflicts with its comments in light of the fact that sections in 39 CFR part 3010 request expansive comments (
In response, the Public Representative asserts that FedEx's proposed revision is unnecessary. PR Reply Comments at 6. She nonetheless states that the proposed rules may benefit from clarifying that part 3017 does not preclude the Commission from initiating a docket and soliciting comments on a relevant non-UPU treaty, convention, or amendment.
The Public Representative also recommends, in conjunction with a suggestion to add a definition of relevant proposal, that the proposed definition of views be limited to opinions on “relevant proposals.” PR Comments at 6-7. She notes that the proposed rules indicate that the Commission will provide views on proposals that affect a market dominant rate or classification but would not exclude proposals that are unable to be assessed because they are for future rates or classifications and lack the detail needed to make an assessment, or proposals that were rejected or withdrawn.
The Commission also concludes that the proposals on which it provides its views do not require clarification. According to the proposed definition, the Commission only gives views on “. . . the consistency of a proposal affecting a market dominant rate or classification with modern rate regulation.” The requirement that the proposal affect a market dominant rate or classification excludes proposals that will not have an effect because they have been withdrawn or rejected, as well as proposals with effects unable to be assessed because they lack the requisite detail to make an assessment. Consequently, except for the changes in the definition section as explained above, the Commission adopts the proposed rule as a final rule without any additional changes relating to the comments regarding proposals.
Commission analysis. The Commission has reviewed this section and concludes that it accurately describes the purpose of the rules. Consequently, it adopts the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
Proposed § 3017.3 consists of three paragraphs. As proposed, paragraph (a) establishes the target date for establishing a public inquiry docket as on or about 150 days before a UPU Congress convenes, and states that the Commission will solicit comments on the general principles that should guide the Commission's development of views on relevant proposals, in a general way, and, if available, on specific relevant proposals. Proposed paragraph (b) states that the public inquiry docket established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may also encompass matters related to development of the Commission's views, such as the availability of relevant proposals, the views, other documents, and related actions. Proposed paragraph (c) provides that the notice establishing each public inquiry docket will be published in the
The Postal Service characterizes FedEx's position as “directly counter to the plain reading of section 407(c)(1).” Postal Service Reply Comments at 5. It notes that FedEx uses the word “agreement,” which is different and distinct from what is set forth in the statute.
In response to FedEx, the Public Representative notes that proposed § 3017.3 can be interpreted as providing a docket for each UPU Congress, including the relevant proposals for UPU meetings following that Congress but prior to the next Congress. PR Reply Comments at 7. She nonetheless does not object to a clarification of the rule.
FedEx also is concerned the proposed rules are too narrowly tailored to UPU Congresses.
The Postal Service observes that UPU proposals generally are not publicly available documents, and states that the Commission should not release documents that are not publicly available. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2. In addition, the Postal Service contests the Public Representative's contention that absent the Commission's provision of the proposals, the public is not in a position to provide meaningful feedback.
The Postal Service also asserts that comments on specific proposals “will significantly burden the commenters and the Commission without providing the overarching opinions of the commenters that are most beneficial to the Commission in developing its views.”
In addition, the Commission found comments on the general principles that should guide the Commission's development of views useful and informative in Docket No. PI2012-1. The inclusion of a reference to specific proposals in the proposed set of rules does not diminish the importance the Commission places on receiving general comments concerning suggested principles and approaches.
Joyce Dillard states comments should not be suspended or foregone because “all public comment should be welcomed on any United States treaty, convention, amendment, or any other transactions.” Dillard Comments at 1. She also states that privatization of the government should not be the Commission's objective.
FedEx agrees with Joyce Dillard's position on the public's need for a voice and representation. FedEx Reply Comments at 4. However, it suggests that Joyce Dillard's implication that the proposed procedures also imply the Commission's intent to foster privatization of the government may be due to a misunderstanding of the Commission's notice.
The Public Representative states that circumstances may require suspending or foregoing comments in order to allow the Commission to provide views to the Secretary of State in a timely manner.
The Commission adopts proposed § 3017.4 as a final rule, with minor editorial revisions to reflect the intention to use the IM designation and the replacement of “public comment” with “comment.”
The Public Representative acknowledges that the Commission has explained that it is not initiating reply comments due to time constraints, but reads the proposed rules to allow interested parties the opportunity to submit reply comments at the Commission's discretion. PR Comments at 7-8. She encourages the Commission to provide interested parties an opportunity to submit reply comments
UPS agrees with the Public Representative's suggestion with respect to providing for reply comments. Corrected UPS Reply Comments at 8. UPS's rationale is that reply comments are valuable because they allow parties to point out flaws in other parties' initial comments. UPS states that reply comments should expedite rather than delay development of the Commission's views.
The Postal Service contends that reply comments are unnecessary and would delay the proceedings. Postal Service Reply Comments at 3. It asserts that in the past, the Commission specifically set forth the policies and scope of the comments it was soliciting from the public, resulting in ample opportunity to develop and submit comments.
The Commission appreciates that reply comments may provide additional useful insights; however, as the Postal Service observes, the purpose of a part 3017 docket is not to facilitate an adversarial proceeding, but rather to provide an opportunity for commenters to provide input on how the views should be developed. This can be accomplished without reply comments. As such, the Commission does not plan to provide an opportunity for reply comments in the ordinary course of a part 3017 docket.
The Commission adopts proposed § 3017.5 as a final rule, with minor revisions to the caption and text for clarity.
1. The Commission adopts 39 CFR part 3017 as a final rule, effective 30 days following publication in the
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
Administrative practice and procedure, International agreements, Postal Service.
39 U.S.C. 407; 503.
(a)
(b)
The rules in this part are intended to facilitate public participation in, and promote the transparency of, the development of Commission views.
(a) On or about 150 days before a Universal Postal Union Congress convenes or such advance time as the Commission determines for any other 39
(b) The docket established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may also include matters related to development of the Commission's views, such as the availability of relevant proposals, Commission views, other documents, or related actions.
(c) The Commission shall arrange for publication in the
(a) The Commission shall establish a deadline for comments upon establishment of the docket that is consistent with timely submission of the Commission's views to the Secretary of State. The Commission may establish other deadlines for comments as appropriate.
(b) The Commission may suspend or forego solicitation of comments if it determines that such solicitation is not consistent with timely submission of Commission views to the Secretary of State.
The Commission will review timely filed comments responding to a Commission solicitation under this part prior to submitting its views to the Secretary of State.
By the Commission.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of intent to review boundaries; intent to prepare environmental impact statement; hold scoping meetings.
In accordance with section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended, (NMSA), the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reviewing the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (MNMS or sanctuary) boundaries in order to evaluate and consider the benefits, need and impact of expanding the sanctuary's boundaries to include additional submerged maritime cultural and archaeologic resources as described in the February 2013 Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. This review process will be conducted per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Comments must be received by March 18, 2016. Public scoping meetings will be held on the following dates:
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
David Alberg, Superintendent, Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, (757) 591-7326.
Public scoping meetings will be held as detailed below:
MNMS was designated the nation's first national marine sanctuary in 1975. The site protects the wreck of the famed Civil War ironclad USS MONITOR, best known for its 1862 battle with the Confederate ironclad CSS VIRGINIA at Hampton Roads, VA. It is located approximately 16 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where it sank in a storm while under tow on December 31, 1862 with the loss of sixteen sailors. The vessel was the prototype for a class of U.S. Civil War ironclad, turreted warships that significantly altered both naval technology and marine architecture in the nineteenth century. The shipwreck and its contents comprise an irreplaceable historical record and represent a monument to the American naval tradition that the vessel itself helped to create.
The sanctuary consists of a column of water one mile in diameter extending from the seabed to the surface, surrounding the shipwreck. The highest priority management goal for the sanctuary is resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation of the wreck and its surroundings. An important part of our nation's history, the USS MONITOR, the archaeological information at the site, the artifact collection, and the USS MONITOR's records are all part of the sanctuary's resources.
The waters of coastal North Carolina contain some of the most significant shipwrecks in the United States and represent an ideal location to study and preserve nationally significant historic wreck sites that include vessels and other artifacts dating back to the Age of North American Exploration, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II among others. The Expansion Working Group, as the basis for their recommended expansion models, has considered four broad
The topic of possible boundary expansion was a primary point of discussion during a series of scoping and public hearings held in 2008 as part of the sanctuary's management plan review process. In 2009, the MNMS SAC voted unanimously to recommend that sanctuary management establish an expansion working group to examine the implications of possible future expansion of the sanctuary's boundaries. The working group recommended NOAA formally evaluate and assess an expansion of existing boundaries to protect, manage, and interpret additional historic shipwrecks and other potential maritime heritage resources that are located or believed to be located in the adjacent waters of North Carolina in an area known as the “Graveyard of the Atlantic”. The sanctuary's final management plan (completed in 2013 and available at
The expansion working group presented possible expansion models to the MNMS SAC and the public at the June 5, 2014 SAC meeting. Subsequently, a motion that the SAC consider the working group models passed on October 1, 2015 to submit them to NOAA for consideration as possible templates for expansion. A detailed narrative of each of the models as well as further information regarding the MNMS in general can be found at
Model A: Includes isolated shipwreck sites. Boundaries would be restricted to select wreck sites and separate from each other. Under this model, some examples of sites which might be included are: USS YP-389, U-85, U-352, U-701, HMT Bedfordshire, Diamond Shoals Lightship, and E.M. Clark (this is a sample list only and may include additional wrecks). This model would include wrecks listed on the National Register of Historic Places, state craft, military gravesites and other individual wrecks of historic significance. Under the SAC's recommendation, State waters would not be included.
Model B: Includes a small area centered around the waters off Cape Hatteras. Boundaries could be established to include several wrecks and adjacent waters and culturally significant features in the landscape, such as Diamond Shoals (Cultural Landscapes are further defined here
Model C: Includes a larger area also centered off Cape Hatteras that incorporates many historically significant wrecks in federal waters with the potential for include of state waters based upon future public input and discussions with the State as described in Model B above. This model includes sanctuary boundaries surrounding individual wreck sites, and further surrounded by a larger study area. If other historically significant wrecks are discovered within this study area in the future NOAA could consider adding these wrecks to the MNMS through a future public process. This area encompasses the majority of the most historically significant wrecks (as determined by the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act) in the waters off Cape Hatteras (at least 75 known wrecks in Federal waters with at least 175 additional sites in adjacent state waters), several representative wrecks from multiple periods of history and cultural significance. The area in between known sites would be designed as a `study area' allowing for inclusion of sites as they are identified.
Model D: Model includes three specific areas, each exhibiting both a representative collection of wrecks in Federal and potentially State waters from many eras and vessel types, and the primary historically significant wrecks off of the Outer Banks. This model includes a collection of at least 100 known wrecks representing all identified thematic areas of cultural significance in the region. The recommendations from the Working Group recommended that the inclusion of state waters be considered based on public input and further discussions with the State as described in Models B and C above.
NOAA is initiating a review of MNMS boundaries to evaluate the benefits and effects of potential sanctuary expansion. This action is being taken to elevate and promote these resources and their history; to facilitate better protection and management of these nationally important resources under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA); to better coordinate maritime heritage resource management with other current and potential users of these waters; to increase the scope of submerged archaeological research; to create educational opportunities for the public; and to potentially benefit local coastal communities through increased tourism and economic growth.
The process for considering changes to MNMS is composed of four primary stages:
1. Scoping, including information collection and characterization, and the consideration of public comments;
2. Preparation and release of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and Draft Management Plan (DMP) as required by Section 304(a) of the NMSA that identifies boundary expansion alternatives (including a no-action alternative under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), as well as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the sanctuary regulations to reflect any new boundary if proposed;
3. Public review and comment on the DEIS, DMP and NPRM; and
4. Preparation and release of a final environmental impact statement and final management plan, including a response to public comments, with a final rule if appropriate.
With this document, NOAA is opening a public comment period to:
1. Gather information and public comments from individuals, organizations, and government agencies
2. Help determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA.
This document confirms that NOAA will fulfill its responsibility under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470) through the ongoing NEPA process, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(a), including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings to meet the section 106 requirements. The NHPA specifically applies to any agency undertaking that may affect historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1), a “historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.”
In fulfilling its responsibility under the NHPA and NEPA, NOAA intends to identify consulting parties; identify historic properties and assess the effects of the undertaking on such properties; initiate formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, and other consulting parties; involve the public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures; and in consultation with the identified consulting parties, develop alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties and describe them in any environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.
16 U.S.C. 1431
Office of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of meetings of negotiated rulemaking committee.
This notice announces the eighth meeting of the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program negotiated rulemaking committee.
The eighth meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 and Wednesday, January 27, 2016. On each day, the session will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Weaver Building, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410.
Randy Akers, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101
Under the IHBG program, HUD makes assistance available to eligible Indian tribes for affordable housing activities. The amount of assistance made available to each Indian tribe is determined using a formula that was developed as part of the NAHASDA negotiated process. Based on the amount of funding appropriated for the IHBG program, HUD calculates the annual grant for each Indian tribe and provides this information to the Indian tribes. An Indian Housing Plan for the Indian tribe is then submitted to HUD. If the Indian Housing Plan is found to be in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, the grant is made.
On July 3, 2012 at 77 FR 39452, HUD announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee for the purpose of developing regulatory changes to the formula allocation for the IHBG program. On June 12, 2013 at 78 FR 35178, HUD announced the list of proposed members for the negotiated rulemaking committee, and requested additional public comment on the proposed membership. On July 30, 2013 at 78 FR 45903, HUD announced the final list of committee members to revise the allocation formula used under the IHBG.
Committee meetings have taken place on August 27-28, 2013, September 17-19, 2013, April 23-24, 2014, June 11-13, 2014, July 29-31, 2014, August 26-28, 2014, and August 11-13, 2015. All of the Committee meetings were announced in the
The eighth meeting of the IHBG Formula Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will be held on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 and Wednesday, January 27, 2016. On each day, the session will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at the Weaver Building, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. The primary agenda items for this meeting will be limited to discussion and vote on adjustments to data sources and approval of final preamble language.
These meetings will be open to the public; however, all members of the public will be required to register their attendance; present valid identification, and be subject to security screening upon entrance to the building. The deadline for registration is 5:00 p.m.
Notices of all future meetings will be published in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document withdraws proposed regulations that would implement the statutory exception to the “contemporaneous written acknowledgement” requirement for substantiating charitable contribution deductions of $250 or more. The withdrawal affects persons that make charitable contributions and organizations that receive charitable contributions.
As of January 8, 2016 the notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55802), is withdrawn.
Robert Basso at (202) 317-7011 (not a toll-free number).
Section 170(f)(8)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code provides the statutory requirement that a taxpayer who claims a charitable contribution deduction for any contribution of $250 or more obtain substantiation in the form of a contemporaneous written acknowledgment (CWA) from the donee organization. However, in section 170(f)(8)(D), Congress provided an exception to the CWA requirement. Under the exception, a CWA is not required if the donee organization files a return on such form and in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury Department may prescribe (donee reporting).
Section 1.170A-13(f) of the Income Tax Regulations provides the rules issued by the Treasury Department and the IRS for substantiating charitable contributions of $250 or more. See TD 8690 (1997-1 CB 68). When issuing TD 8690 in 1997, the Treasury Department and the IRS specifically declined to issue regulations to implement donee reporting under section 170(f)(8)(D). The IRS has consistently maintained that the section 170(f)(8)(D) exception is not available unless and until the Treasury Department and the IRS issue final regulations prescribing the method for donee reporting. Nevertheless, some taxpayers under examination for their claimed charitable contribution deductions have recently argued that a failure to comply with the CWA requirements of section 170(f)(8)(A) may be cured if the donee organization files an amended Form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” that includes the donor's contribution information. These taxpayers argue that an amended Form 990 constitutes permissible donee reporting under section 170(f)(8)(D), even if the amended Form 990 is submitted to the IRS many years after the purported charitable contribution was made. In response to some donors' requests, some donee organizations have filed amended Forms 990 attempting to effectuate donee reporting. The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the Form 990 is an unsuitable reporting method for this purpose and may not be used to effectuate donee reporting.
However, in response to the interest by some taxpayers in donee reporting under the statutory exception, the Treasury Department and the IRS proposed regulations to implement a framework addressing the manner and timing for donee reporting under section 170(f)(8)(D). On September 17, 2015, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-138344-13) was published in the
The proposed framework for donee reporting was intended to minimize the reporting burden on donee organizations by making it voluntary, and to protect donor privacy by not using the Form 990 series. In the preamble to the proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS expressed concern about the potential risk for identity theft with a donee reporting system based on a specific-use information return because donee organizations would be collecting donors' taxpayer identification numbers and maintaining those numbers for some period of time. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments, including specifically on whether additional guidance was necessary regarding the procedures a donee organization should use to mitigate the risk of identity theft of donor information.
The Treasury Department and the IRS received a substantial number of public comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. Many of these public comments questioned the need for donee reporting, and many comments expressed significant concerns about donee organizations collecting and maintaining taxpayer identification numbers for purposes of the specific-use information return. In response to those comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided against implementing the statutory exception to the CWA requirement, and therefore that exception remains unavailable unless and until final regulations are issued prescribing the method for donee reporting. Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-138344-13) that was published in the
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
GSA is proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by updating the definition for incidental expenses to include ATM fees, and by clarifying the policy for laundry, cleaning, and pressing of clothing.
Interested parties should submit comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before March 8, 2016 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2015-304 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-219-2349. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR case 2015-304.
The FTR currently lists incidental expenses as fees and tips given to porters, baggage carriers, hotel staff, and staff on ships. Including ATM fees in incidental expenses, rather than reimbursing as a miscellaneous expense, will increase the Government's ability to project travel costs, improve cost control, and simplify rules of official travel. Additionally, this proposed rule removes the ambiguity on whether reimbursement of expenses for laundry, cleaning, and pressing of clothing for employees who go on official travel are subject to agency discretion.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This proposed rule would not 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 Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701-5711, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR parts 300-3, 301-11, 301-12, and 301-70 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 586, Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.
(c)
5 U.S.C. 5707.
Your agency may reimburse the expenses incurred for laundry, cleaning, and pressing of clothing as a miscellaneous travel expense for TDY within CONUS. * * *
5 U.S.C. 5707.
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701, note), OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992, and OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix B, revised January 15, 2009.
(h) Who will determine, and in what instances, an employee will be separately reimbursed for transaction fees for use of automated teller machines (ATMs) when using the Government contractor-issued charge card, even though this expense is part of incidental expenses under per diem.
(c) Who will determine if other miscellaneous expenses such as expenses for laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing are appropriate for reimbursement in connection with official travel.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice of public hearing.
This document announces a public hearing to receive information and views on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table.”
January 14, 2016, from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (EST).
5600 Fishers Lane, Conference Room 08SWH01, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (and via audio conference call and Adobe Connect).
Dr. Melissa Houston, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, at 855-266-2427 or by email at
The Secretary proposes to amend the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) by regulation. These proposed regulations will have effect only for petitions for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) filed after the final regulations become effective. The Secretary is seeking public comment on the proposed revisions to the Table.
The NPRM was published in the
A public hearing will be held within the 180-day public comment period. This hearing is to provide an open forum for the presentation of information and views concerning all aspects of the NPRM by interested persons.
In preparing a final regulation, the Secretary will consider the administrative record of this hearing along with all other written comments received during the comment period specified in the NPRM. Individuals or representatives of interested organizations are invited to participate in the public hearing in accordance with the schedule and procedures set forth below.
The presiding officer representing the Secretary, HHS will be Dr. Melissa Houston, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration.
Persons who wish to participate are requested to file a notice of participation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on or before January 11, 2016. The notice should be mailed to Annie Herzog, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, HSB, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Room 08N146B, Maryland 20857 or emailed to
Persons who find that there is insufficient time to submit the required information in writing may give oral notice of participation by contacting Annie Herzog, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, at (301) 443-6634 or email at
After reviewing the notices of participation and accompanying information, HHS will schedule each appearance and notify each participant by mail, email, or telephone of the time allotted to the person(s) and the approximate time the person's oral presentation is scheduled to begin.
Written comments and transcripts of the hearing will be made available for public inspection as soon as they have been prepared, on weekdays (federal holidays excepted) between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EDT) by contacting Annie Herzog by mail at
1. (In Person) Persons interested in attending the meeting in person are encouraged to submit a written notification to: Annie Herzog, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or email:
2. (Audio Portion) Calling the conference phone number 888-455-9673 and providing the following information:
Leaders Name: Dr. A. Melissa Houston.
Password: 4185364.
3. (Visual Portion) Connecting to the ACCV Adobe Connect Pro Meeting using the following URL:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice of Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee meeting.
This document announces a public meeting of the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC). The committee will meet to consider and vote on the proposed rule, “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,” and the associated regulatory assessment.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 1, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will not be web cast; however, presentations will be available on the meeting Web site and posted on the E-Gov Web site:
The meeting will take place in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area at a location yet to be determined. The location of the meeting and other details will be posted on the PHMSA Web site under Regulations/Pipeline Advisory Committees at
Comments on the meeting may be submitted to the docket in the following ways:
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2010-0229 and PHMSA 2015-0173.” The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at DOT.
Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to seek special assistance at the meeting, please contact Cheryl Whetsel at 202-366-4431 by January 15, 2016.
For information about the meetings, contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-4431 or by email at
Members of the public may attend and make a statement during the advisory committee meetings. For a better chance to speak at the meetings, please contact the individual listed under
The LPAC is a statutorily created committee that advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risks assessments, and safety policies for hazardous liquid pipelines (49 U.S.C. 60115). The committee's activities are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1). The committee consists of 15 members—with membership evenly divided among the federal and state government, the regulated industry, and the public. The committee advises PHMSA on technical feasibility, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of each proposed pipeline safety standard. PHMSA staff may also provide an update on several regulatory and policy initiatives if time allows.
The agenda will include the committee's discussion and vote on the proposed rule, “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,” published in the
The proposed rule includes critical safety improvements for hazardous liquid pipelines and seeks to strengthen the way they are operated, inspected and maintained in the United States.
In this proposed rule, PHMSA addresses effective measures that hazardous liquid operators can take to improve the protection of high consequence areas and other vulnerable areas along their hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. In summary, the proposed rule addresses the following areas:
• Requirements for gravity lines.
• Reporting requirements for gathering lines.
• Inspections of pipelines following extreme weather events.
• Periodic assessments of pipelines not subject to integrity management.
• Pipeline repair criteria.
• Expanded use of leak detection systems.
• Increased use of in-line inspection tools.
• Clarifying other requirements.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; announcement of open houses and public hearings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), published a proposed rule elsewhere in today's
We will hold nine open houses and public hearings on the proposed rule as follows:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R7-NWRS-2014-0005; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
(3) At open houses or the public hearings: Written comments will be accepted by Service personnel at any of
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Mail Stop 211, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone (907) 306-7448.
We published a proposed rule elsewhere in today's
We are holding nine open houses and public hearings on the dates listed above in the
We cannot accept verbal testimony at any of the open houses; verbal testimony can only be accepted at the public hearings. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at a public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up at a hearing if they desire to make an oral statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.
Persons with disabilities needing reasonable accommodations to participate in an open house or public hearing should contact Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska (see
The primary author of this document is Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Anchorage Regional Office.
The authority for this action is 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to amend our regulations for National Wildlife Refuges (refuges) in Alaska. This proposed rule clarifies how our existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on refuges in Alaska relate to predator control; prohibits several particularly effective methods and means for take of predators; and updates our public participation and closure procedures. This proposed rule would not change Federal subsistence regulations or restrict the taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal subsistence regulations.
We must receive your comments on or before March 8, 2016.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
We will post all comments on
Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Mail Stop 211, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone (907) 306-7448.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has various mandates it must adhere to in managing the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). There are three statutes in particular that provide direction and authority specific to the Alaska NWRS: The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 3111-3126); the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, which amended the National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act)); and the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).
The Improvement Act provides that ANILCA takes precedence if there is a conflict between the two, and thus ANILCA provides the primary direction for management specific to refuges in Alaska. ANILCA added approximately 54 million acres of land to the NWRS in Alaska, managed by USFWS; established nine new refuges; and established or redesignated seven other already established refuges. ANILCA also designated 18.7 million acres in 13 wilderness areas on refuges in Alaska as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Under ANILCA, each refuge in Alaska has a nonexclusive list of purposes for which it was established, including to “conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity” followed by a list of representative species particular to each refuge. Under ANILCA, all other refuge establishment purposes for Alaska refuges (except international treaty obligations) must be managed consistently with the first purpose for the conservation of natural diversity. While “natural diversity” is not defined in ANILCA, its legislative history provides guidance. The Senate Report on H.R. 39 states that refuges represent “the opportunity to manage these areas on a planned ecosystem-wide basis with all of their pristine ecological processes intact” (S. Rep. No. 96-413 at 174 (1979),
In its ANILCA Title VIII statement of policy, Congress stated, “nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources [by rural residents] shall be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska when it is necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or the continuation of subsistence uses of such population, the taking of such population for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be given preference on the public land over other consumptive uses” (16 U.S.C. 3112(2)). This subsistence preference includes all National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
All refuges in Alaska (except the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) have among their stated statutory purposes to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local rural residents in a manner consistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity and fulfilling the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats. In a further statement of Title VIII policy, Congress stated that “consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife, the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of the resources of such lands; consistent with management of fish and wildlife in accordance with recognized scientific principles and the purposes for each unit established . . . the purpose of this title [Title VIII] is to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so” (16 U.S.C. 3112(1)). The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in its report on H.R. 39 stated that “the phrase `the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife' is to mean the maintenance of fish and wildlife resources in their habitats in a condition which assures stable and continuing natural populations and species mix of plants and animals in relation to their ecosystems, including recognition that local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses may be a natural part of that ecosystem . . . ” (S. Rep. No. 96-413 at 233,
The USFWS recognizes the importance of the fish, wildlife, and other natural resources in the lives and cultures of Alaska Native peoples, rural residents, and in the lives of all Alaskans, and we continue to recognize subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources as the priority consumptive use on Federal lands in Alaska, which includes all National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. This proposed rule would not change existing or future Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100) or restrict taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal subsistence regulations.
The Improvement Act states that refuges must be managed to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and purposes of the individual refuge. The Improvement Act also clearly states the mission of the NWRS, which is to “administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” Section 4(a)(4)(B) of the Improvement Act states that “In administering the System, the Secretary shall . . . ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health [BIDEH] of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . .” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). The USFWS BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), which provides guidance for implementation of the Improvement Act, defines biological integrity as “biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.” In that policy, biological diversity is defined as “the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur.” The policy defines environmental health as the “composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.” Abiotic features are nonliving chemical and physical features of the environment (
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) states that wilderness “is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man . . . which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Our wilderness stewardship policy (610 FW 1) interprets “untrammeled” to be “the freedom of a landscape from the human intent to permanently intervene, alter, control, or manipulate natural conditions or processes.” The second chapter of the wilderness stewardship policy, which outlines administration and resource stewardship (610 FW 2), directs that USFWS will not manipulate ecosystem processes, specifically including predator/prey fluctuations, in wilderness areas unless “necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes, or in cases where these processes become unnatural” (
The overarching goal of our wildlife-dependent recreation policy is to enhance opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences on refuges and to manage the refuge to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats (605 FW 1.6). We recognize hunting as one of many priority uses of the Refuge System (when and where compatible with refuge purposes) that is a healthy, traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American heritage (605 FW 2). As stated in part 36 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 36), the taking of fish and wildlife through public recreational activities, including sport hunting, is authorized on refuges in Alaska “as long as such activities are conducted in manner compatible with the purposes for which the areas were established” (50 CFR 36.31(a)).
Sport hunting and trapping on refuges is generally regulated by the States, unless further restricted by Federal law (see 50 CFR 32.2(d)) or closures to Federal public land, such as under Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 242.26 or 50 CFR 100.26). In Alaska, sport hunting is commonly referred to as general hunting and trapping and includes State subsistence hunts and general permits open to both Alaska residents and nonresidents (see proposed definition under the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section, below). These activities remain subject to Federal law, including mandates under ANILCA; the Improvement Act; and, where applicable, the Wilderness Act. Applicable directives and guidance can also be found in policies in the USFWS Manual at 601 FW 3 (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health), 610 FW 2 (Wilderness Administration and Resource Stewardship), and 605 FW 2 (Hunting). Additionally, the regulations at 50 CFR 36.32(a) state that the Refuge Manager “may designate areas where, and establish periods when, no taking of a particular population of fish or wildlife shall be permitted.”
The State of Alaska's (State) legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is based on sustained yield, which is defined by statute to mean “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on an annual or periodic basis” (Alaska Statute (AS) 16.05.255(j)(5)). Since 1994, Alaska State law (AS 16.05.255) has prioritized human consumptive use of ungulates—specifically moose, caribou, and deer. Known as the Intensive Management (IM) statute, the law requires the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) to designate populations of ungulates for which human consumptive use is the highest priority use and to set population and harvest objectives for those populations. To that end, the BOG must “adopt regulations to provide for intensive management programs to restore the abundance or productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary to achieve human consumptive use goals” (AS 16.05.255(e)). Once designated as an IM population, if either populations or harvests fail to meet management objectives, nonresident hunting must first be eliminated, followed by reductions or eliminations of resident harvest opportunities. However, under the IM statute, the BOG may not significantly reduce the harvest opportunities of an identified IM ungulate population unless it has adopted or is considering the adoption
The BOG has adopted regulations under the IM statute that require targeted reductions of wolf, black bear, brown bear, or a combination of these in designated “predation control areas” within game management units. These State regulations are implemented through IM plans that authorize activities including aerial shooting of wolves or bears or both by State agency personnel, trapping of wolves by paid contractors, allowance under permit for same-day airborne hunting of wolves and bears by the public, and allowance under permit for the take of any black or brown bear through baiting or snaring by the public (5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 92).
Thirteen of the 16 refuges in Alaska contain lands within game management units officially designated for IM. While predator control activities occurring under the authority of an IM plan have not been permitted by USFWS on any refuge in Alaska, some predator control programs and activities are being implemented in predation control areas immediately adjacent to refuges. Given the large home ranges of many species affected by IM actions, these control programs have the potential to impact wildlife resources, natural systems, and ecological processes, as well as conservation and management of these species on adjacent refuges.
In recent years, concurrent with its adoption and implementation of IM plans for predation control areas, the BOG has also authorized measures under its general hunting and trapping regulations that have the potential to greatly increase effectiveness of the take of predators and to disrupt natural processes and wildlife interactions. Examples of these recently adopted measures, which apply beyond areas officially designated for IM, including many refuges in Alaska, are:
• Harvesting brown bears over bait at registered black bear bait stations;
• Taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season;
• Expanding season lengths and increasing bag limits;
• Classifying black bears as both furbearers and big game species (which could allow for trapping and snaring of bears and sale of their hides and skulls); and
• Authorizing same-day airborne take of bears at registered bait stations (5 AAC 85).
Many of the recent actions by the BOG to liberalize the State's regulatory frameworks for general hunting and trapping of wolves, bears, and coyotes reverse long-standing prohibitions and restrictions on take of these wildlife species under State law. Unlike the recent practice of taking brown bears over bait, black bear baiting has been an authorized practice in Alaska since 1982, including on refuges. Black bear baiting is authorized by the State pursuant to a permit and, in some instances, a special use permit (USFWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by refuges. Taking of brown bears at black bear baiting stations was recently authorized under State regulations in certain game management units within the State (several of which are within refuges) and is subject to the same restrictions as black bear baiting. The State regulations prohibit setting up a bait station within 1 mile of a home or other dwelling, business, or campground, or within
Implementation of IM actions under the IM statute and many of the recent liberalizations of the general hunting and trapping regulations have direct implications for the management of refuges in Alaska. Predator-prey interactions represent a dynamic and foundational ecological process in Alaska's arctic and subarctic ecosystems, and are a major driver of ecosystem function. Regulations or activities on refuges in Alaska that are inconsistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural diversity, or the maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, are in direct conflict with our legal mandates for administering refuges in Alaska under ANILCA, the Improvement Act, and the Wilderness Act, as well as with several applicable agency policies (601 FW 3, 610 FW 2, and 605 FW 2).
The USFWS is mandated to conserve species and habitats in their natural diversity and ensure that biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health are maintained on refuges in Alaska for the continuing benefit of present and future generations. In managing for natural diversity, the USFWS conserves, protects, and manages all fish and wildlife populations within a particular wildlife refuge system unit in the natural `mix,' not to emphasize management activities favoring one species to the detriment of another. The USFWS assures that habitat diversity is maintained through natural means on refuges in Alaska, avoiding artificial developments and habitat manipulation programs, whenever possible. The USFWS fully recognizes and considers that rural residents use, and are often dependent on, refuge resources for subsistence purposes, and the USFWS manages for this use consistent with the conservation of species and habitats in their natural diversity. The terms biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health are defined in the BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), which directs the USFWS to maintain the variety of life and its processes; to maintain biotic and abiotic compositions, structure, and functioning; and to manage populations for natural densities and levels of variation throughout the NWRS.
This proposed rule would not change Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100) or otherwise restrict the taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence by federally qualified users under those regulations. This proposed rule would also not apply to take in Defense of Life and Property as defined under State regulations (see 5 AAC 92.410). Hunting and trapping are priority uses of refuges in Alaska. The proposed rule would not affect implementation of State hunting and trapping regulations that are consistent with Federal law and USFWS policies on refuges, nor would it restrict hunting or trapping activities outside USFWS-managed refuge lands and waters.
The proposed rule would make the following substantive changes:
(1) We would prohibit predator control on refuges in Alaska, unless it is determined necessary to meet refuge purposes, Federal laws, or policy; is consistent with our mandates to manage for natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health; and is based on sound science in response to a significant conservation concern. Demands for more wildlife for human harvest cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control. A Refuge Manager could authorize predator control activities on a National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska only if:
(a) Alternatives to predator control have been evaluated, attempted, and exhausted as a practical means of achieving management objectives;
(b) Proposed actions have been evaluated and found to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
(c) A formal refuge compatibility determination has been completed, as required by law; and
(d) The potential effects of predator control on subsistence uses and needs
For clarity, we would define predator control as the intention to reduce the population of predators for the benefit of prey species. The USFWS in Alaska's position for the last three decades has been that the need for predator control must be based on sound science in response to a significant conservation concern. This requirement is consistent with managing for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health under ANILCA and the Improvement Act.
This proposed rule would ensure that take of wildlife under State regulations and implementation of predator control on refuges in Alaska are consistent with our legal mandates and policies for administration of those refuges.
(2) We would also prohibit certain practices for the taking of wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife refuges (except for subsistence uses by federally qualified subsistence users in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations), including:
• Taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception allowed for resident hunters to take black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at a den site October 15-April 30 in specific game management units in accordance with State law);
• Taking brown bears over bait;
• Taking of bears using traps or snares;
• Taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season (May 1-August 9); and
• Taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred. The take of wolves or wolverines from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred is already prohibited under current refuge regulations, and this would not change.
The USFWS is seeking comment on the type of bait allowed to be used for the baiting of black or brown bears. Currently, State regulations, which are adopted on refuges, require the bait used at bear baiting stations to be biodegradable. People use a range of different types of bait for the baiting of bears, including parts of fish and game that are not required to be salvaged when these species are harvested, as well as human and pet food products.
(3) We would update our regulations to reflect Federal assumption of management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of ANILCA by the Federal Government from the State in the 1990s.
(4) We would amend 50 CFR 32.2(h) to state that black bear baiting is authorized in accordance with State regulations on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. This change would help ensure consistency in our regulations if the amendments to 50 CFR 36, as presented in this proposed rule, are adopted.
(5) We would update procedures for implementing closures or restrictions on refuges, including the taking of fish and wildlife under sport hunting and trapping, to more effectively engage and inform the public and make the notice and durational provisions more consistent with procedures set forth in Federal subsistence closure policy and regulations at 36 CFR 242.19 and 50 CFR 100.19 for emergency special actions on Federal public lands in Alaska. Improved consistency between these Federal regulations and processes is intended to help minimize confusion and make it easier for the public to be involved in the process.
Under the proposed rule, the Regional Director will compile a list, updated at least annually, of Alaska refuge closures and restrictions under Federal Alaska refuge regulations. Notice would be provided in accordance with the procedures set forth at 50 CFR 36.42. This annual list would include contact information for the lead staff and a process for the public to provide input and review.
The current regulations provide for emergency, temporary, and permanent restrictions. The proposed changes would outline emergency restrictions, limited to 60 days, and temporary restrictions, limited to the minimum time necessary, with review at least every 3 years.
We would also update the closures and restrictions notification procedures for refuges in Alaska to reflect the availability of alternative communications technologies and approaches that have emerged or evolved over the last few decades. These changes recognize that the Internet has become one of the primary methods to communicate with the public and is an effective tool for engaging Alaskans and the broader American public and that there are other forms of broadcast media, beyond just the radio, that we may want to use.
The proposed changes to the notification procedures are not intended to limit public involvement or reduce public notice; rather, we intend to engage in ways more likely to encourage public involvement and in a manner that is fiscally sustainable. We recognize that in-person public meetings will still be the most effective way to engage Alaskans, and we intend to continue that practice. We also recognize that many individuals in rural Alaska do not have access to high speed Internet, and for that reason, we will continue to use other methods of communication, such as newspapers and radio, where available to provide adequate notice.
The following table summarizes the changes we propose to the existing procedures for public participation and closures at 50 CFR 36.42:
(6) We propose to codify definitions for several terms (see the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section, below). These terms include “Bait,” “Big game,” “Biological diversity,” “Biological integrity,” “Cub bear,” “Environmental health,” “Furbearer,” “Historic conditions,” “Natural diversity,” “Predator control,” “Regional Director,” “Sport hunting,” and “Trapping.” Most of these definitions, including bait, big game, cub bear, furbearer, and predator control, are based on existing definitions in Federal subsistence regulations or policy.
During our scoping and tribal consultation efforts, we heard that the definitions for biological integrity, biological diversity, natural diversity, and environmental health and the origins of these definitions were of significant interest to people. As discussed earlier in the preamble, the USFWS is mandated under the Improvement Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health [BIDEH] of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . .” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). The USFWS BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), which provides guidance for implementation of the Improvement Act, provides definitions for each of these terms, as well as the term “historic conditions,” and those definitions are included word-for-word in this proposed rule. As was also discussed earlier in the preamble, under ANILCA, each refuge in Alaska has an establishment purpose to “conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity.” Our proposed definition for natural diversity is based on the discussion of the term in the legislative history of ANILCA.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule would amend regulations for refuges in Alaska. The proposed rule would: (1) Codify how our existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on refuges in Alaska relate to predator control (50 CFR 36.1); (2) prohibit several particularly effective methods and means for take of predators (50 CFR 36.32); and (3) update our public participation and closure procedures (50 CFR 36.42). Predator control is prohibited on refuges in Alaska unless it is determined necessary to meet refuge purposes, Federal laws, or policy and is consistent with our mandates to manage for natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health. The need for predator control must be based on sound science in response to a significant conservation concern. Demands for more wildlife to harvest cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control. This rule would not change Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100) or restrict taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal subsistence regulations. Codifying our existing mandates on conservation of natural diversity, biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health would not have a significant impact because the USFWS is and has been required to manage refuges in Alaska consistent with these mandates for the last several decades since they were put into effect. Codifying previously and currently prohibited sport hunting and trapping practices would not have a significant impact because the few changes that have occurred have been relatively recent, occurring over the last several years, and this rule would actually constitute a change back to the status quo. State general hunting and trapping regulations currently apply to refuges in Alaska. Therefore, the prohibition of particular methods and means for the take of predators under State regulations on refuges in Alaska that may affect visitor use on those refuges include the take of brown bears over bait, take of wolves and coyotes during the denning season, and same-day airborne take of bears. The take of black bear sows with cubs is only allowed under State regulations in specific game management units for customary and traditional use; therefore it is not currently nor in the past has it been legal for the general public to participate in this activity outside of that framework. As a result, big game hunting may decrease if a hunter's preferred hunting method is prohibited. Conversely, wildlife watching activities may increase if there are increased opportunities to view wildlife, including bears, wolves, and coyotes. From 2009 to 2013, big game hunting on refuges in Alaska averaged about 40,000 days annually and represented 2 percent of wildlife-related recreation on refuges. For Statewide hunting, big game hunting on refuges in Alaska represented only 4 percent of all big game hunting days (1.2 million days). Due to the past ban on these proposed prohibited methods and means for take of predators, we estimate that these hunting methods (take of brown bears over bait, take of wolves and coyotes during the denning season, and same-day airborne take of bears) represent a small fraction of all big game hunting on refuges. As a result, big game hunting on refuges would change minimally. This change in opportunity would most likely be offset by other sites (located outside of refuges) gaining participants. Therefore, there would be a substitute site for these hunting methods, and participation rates would not necessarily change.
Hunters' spending contributes income to the regional economy and benefits local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the Alaska estimate from the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average trip-related expenditures for big game hunting ($139 per day) yields approximately $5.9 million annually in big game hunting-related expenditures on refuges in Alaska. Since only a small fraction of big game hunters would choose not to hunt on refuges under the proposed rule, the impact would be minimal. The net loss to the local communities would be no more than $5.9 million annually, and most likely considerably less because few hunters use the prohibited methods and those hunters that do would likely choose a substitute site.
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, etc.) may be impacted from some decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in local communities around refuges qualify as small businesses. We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities in Alaska.
With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this proposed rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities would have more than a small impact from the spending change near the affected refuges. Therefore, we certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This proposed rule does not involve the taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. This proposed rule, if adopted, would affect the public use and management of Federal lands managed by USFWS in Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This proposed rule, if adopted, would affect the public use and management of Federal lands managed by USFWS in Alaska and would not have a substantial direct effect on State or local governments in Alaska.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951 (May 4, 1994)), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)), and the Department of the Interior Manual, 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis, and we are seeking the Tribes' input in evaluating this proposed rule. In addition, we have evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with 512 DM 4 under Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, August 10, 2012. We have been and will continue to consult with Alaska Native tribes and Alaska Native corporations regarding this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. We believe that the rule would not have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
The primary authors of this proposed rule are Heather Abbey Tonneson and Stephanie Brady of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Regional Office, with considerable review and input from other USFWS Alaska refuge and Office of Subsistence Management managerial and biological staff.
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Alaska, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
Accordingly, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i.
16 U.S.C. 460(k)
(a) National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska are maintained to conserve species and habitats in their natural diversity and to ensure biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health for the continuing benefit of present and future generations.
Fish may be taken by Federally qualified subsistence users, as defined at 50 CFR part 100.5, for subsistence uses on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with this subpart and 50 CFR part 100.
Federally qualified subsistence users, as defined at 50 CFR part 100.5, may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence uses on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with this subpart and 50 CFR part 100.
(a) The taking of fish and wildlife for sport hunting and trapping and for sport fishing is authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal law, and such laws are hereby adopted and made a part of these regulations, except as noted below and provided however, that the Refuge Manager, pursuant to § 36.42, may designate areas where, and establish periods when, no taking of a particular population of fish or wildlife will be allowed.
(b) Predator control is prohibited on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska, unless it is determined necessary to meet refuge purposes, Federal laws, or policy; is consistent with our mandates to manage for natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health; and is based on
(1) Alternatives to predator control have been evaluated, attempted, and exhausted as a practical means of achieving management objectives;
(2) Proposed actions have been evaluated in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
(3) A formal refuge compatibility determination has been completed, as required by law; and
(4) The potential effects of predator control on subsistence uses and needs have been evaluated through an ANILCA section 810 analysis.
(c) The exercise of valid commercial fishing rights or privileges obtained pursuant to existing law, including any use of refuge areas for campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and aircraft landing directly incident to the exercise of such rights or privileges, is authorized;
(d) The following provisions apply to any person while engaged in the taking of fish and wildlife within an Alaska National Wildlife Refuge:
(1)
(ii) Each person must comply with the applicable provisions of Federal law;
(iii) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, each person must continue to secure a trapping permit from the appropriate Refuge Manager prior to trapping on the Kenai, Izembek, and Kodiak Refuges and the Aleutian Islands Unit of the Alaska Maritime Refuge.
(iv) It is unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking any species of bear, wolf, or wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the day in which the flying occurred, except that a trapper may use a firearm or any other weapon to dispatch a legally caught wolf or wolverine in a trap or snare on the same day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained public airports.
(v) The following methods and means for take of wildlife are prohibited:
(2)
(ii) Each person must comply with the applicable provisions of Federal law.
(e) Persons transporting fish or wildlife through Alaska National Wildlife Refuges must carry an Alaska State hunting or fishing license, or in cases where a person is transporting game for another person, they are required to carry an Alaska State “Transfer of Possession Form” on their person and make these available when requested by law enforcement personnel.
(f) Nothing in this section applies to or restricts the taking or transporting of fish and wildlife by Federally qualified subsistence users under Federal subsistence regulations.
(g) Animal control programs will only be conducted in accordance with a special use permit issued by the Refuge Manager.
(a)
(b)
(c) * * *
(4) Emergency closures or restrictions may not exceed a period of 60 days. Extensions beyond 60 days are subject to nonemergency closure procedures.
(d)
(2) Temporary closures or restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife will be effective only after allowing for the opportunity for public comment and a public hearing in the vicinity of the area(s) affected. Temporary closures or restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife also require consultation with the State and affected Tribes and Native Corporations.
(3) Other temporary closures will be effective upon notice as set forth at § 36.42(f).
(4) Temporary closures or restrictions, other than those relating to the taking of fish and wildlife, will extend only for as long as necessary to achieve the purpose
(5) Temporary closures or restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife will extend only for as long as necessary to achieve the purpose of the closure or restriction. These temporary closures and restrictions will be periodically re-evaluated as necessary, at least every 3 years, to determine whether the circumstances necessitating the original closure or restriction still exist and warrant continuation. A formal finding will be made in writing that explains the reasoning for the decision. When a closure is no longer needed, action to remove it will be initiated as soon as practicable.
(6) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will maintain a list of all refuge closures and restrictions and will publish this list annually for public review.
(e)
(f)
(1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the State and in local newspapers;
(2) Use of electronic media, such as the Internet and email lists;
(3) Broadcast media (radio, television, etc.); or
(4) Posting of signs in the local vicinity or at the Refuge Manager's office.
(g)
(h) Except as otherwise specifically allowed under the provisions of this part, entry into closed areas or failure to abide by restrictions established under this section is prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 110 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). If approved, Amendment 110 would improve the management of Chinook and chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery by creating a comprehensive salmon bycatch avoidance program. This proposed action is necessary to minimize Chinook and chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to the extent practicable while maintaining the potential for the full harvest of the pollock total allowable catch within specified prohibited species catch limits. Amendment 110 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
Comments must be received no later than March 8, 2016.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0081, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 110 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) may be obtained from
Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the
NMFS manages the pollock fishery in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared this FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Amendment 110 would apply to owners and operators of catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, inshore processors, and the six Western Alaska Community Development Quota
The pollock fishery is managed under the American Fisheries Act (AFA) (16 U.S.C. 1851 note). In October 1998, Congress enacted the AFA, which “rationalized” the pollock fishery by identifying the vessels and processors eligible to participate in the fishery and allocating pollock among those eligible participants. For more information on the AFA, please see the final rule implementing the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002).
Under the AFA, 10 percent of the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) is allocated to the CDQ Program. After the CDQ Program allocation is subtracted, an amount needed for the incidental catch of pollock in other groundfish fisheries is subtracted from the TAC. In 2015, the CDQ allocation was 131,000 mt of pollock and the incidental catch allowance was 47,160 mt. The allocation of pollock to the CDQ Program is further allocated among the six non-profit corporations (CDQ groups) that represent the 65 communities eligible for the CDQ Program under section 305(i)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The “directed fishing allowance” is the remaining amount of pollock, after subtraction of the CDQ Program allocation and the incidental catch allowance. The directed fishing allowance is then allocated among the AFA inshore sector (50 percent), the AFA catcher/processor sector (40 percent), and the AFA mothership sector (10 percent). Annually, NMFS further apportions the pollock allocations to the CDQ Program and the other three AFA sectors between two seasons—40 percent to the A season (January 20 to June 10) and 60 percent to the B season (June 10 to November 1) (see § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B)(
The AFA allows for the formation of fishery cooperatives within the non-CDQ sectors. A purpose of these AFA cooperatives is to further subdivide each sector's or inshore cooperative's pollock allocation among participants in the sector or cooperative through private contractual agreements. The cooperatives manage these allocations to ensure that individual vessels and companies do not harvest more than their agreed upon share. The cooperatives also facilitate transfers of pollock among the cooperative members, enforce contract provisions, and participate in an intercooperative agreement to minimize non-Chinook salmon bycatch as well as an incentive plan agreement to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch.
The inshore sector is comprised of catcher vessels eligible to deliver pollock to the seven eligible AFA inshore processors. Eligible catcher vessels may form inshore cooperatives associated with a particular inshore processor. NMFS permits the inshore cooperatives, allocates pollock to them, and manages these allocations through a regulatory prohibition against an inshore cooperative exceeding its pollock allocation.
The AFA catcher/processor sector is comprised of the catcher/processors and catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver to catcher/processors. The AFA mothership sector is made up of three motherships and the catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver pollock to these motherships. These sectors have formed cooperatives; however, NMFS does not manage the sub-allocations of pollock among the cooperative members. The cooperatives control the harvest by their member vessels so that the pollock allocation to the sector is not exceeded. However, NMFS monitors pollock harvest by all members of the catcher/processor sector and mothership sector. NMFS retains the authority to close directed fishing for pollock by a sector if vessels in that sector continue to fish once the sector's seasonal allocation of pollock has been harvested.
Pollock is harvested with fishing vessels using trawl gear, which are large nets towed through the water by the vessel. Pollock can occur in the same locations as Chinook salmon and chum salmon. Consequently, Chinook salmon and chum salmon are incidentally caught in the nets as fishermen target pollock.
Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish that are harvested in a fishery, which are not sold or kept for personal use. Therefore, Chinook salmon and chum salmon caught in the pollock fishery are considered bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Bycatch of any species, including discard or other mortality caused by fishing, is a concern of the Council and NMFS. National Standard 9 and section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to select, and NMFS to implement, conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality.
The bycatch of culturally and economically valuable species like Chinook salmon and chum salmon, which are fully allocated and, in some cases, facing conservation concerns, are categorized as prohibited species under the FMP and are the most regulated and closely managed category of bycatch. Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, Pacific halibut, king crab, Tanner crab, and Pacific herring are classified as prohibited species in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. As a prohibited species, fishermen must avoid salmon bycatch and any salmon caught must either be donated to the Prohibited Species Donation Program under § 679.26, or returned to Federal waters as soon as is practicable, with a minimum of injury, after an observer has determined the number of salmon and collected any scientific data or biological samples.
The pollock fishery catches more than 95 percent of the Chinook salmon taken incidentally in the BSAI groundfish fisheries, based on data from 1992 through 2014. However, this percentage has declined in recent years with the decline in the amount of Chinook salmon caught in the pollock fishery. From 1992 through 2001, the average Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery was 32,482 fish per year. Bycatch increased substantially from 2002 through 2007, to an average of 74,067 Chinook salmon per year. A historic high of approximately 122,000 Chinook salmon was taken in the pollock fishery in 2007. However, since 2007 Chinook salmon bycatch then declined substantially to an average of 15,500 Chinook salmon per year from 2008 to 2014. The decline is most likely due to a combination of factors, including changes in abundance and distribution of Chinook salmon and pollock, as well as changes in fleet behavior to avoid salmon bycatch.
Chinook salmon taken in the pollock fishery originate from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and Canada. Estimates vary, but more than half of the Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery may be destined for western Alaska. Western Alaska includes the Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, and Norton Sound areas. Section 3.4 of the Analysis provides additional information about Chinook salmon biology, distribution, and stock
The pollock fishery catches over 95 percent of the chum salmon taken incidentally as bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The pollock fishery catches chum salmon almost exclusively in the B season (after June 10). The pollock fishery has caught large numbers of chum, with a historic high of approximately 700,000 chum salmon taken in 2005. Since then, bycatch levels have been quite variable, ranging from a low of 13,280 chum salmon in 2010 to a high of 309,646 chum salmon in 2006. Average chum salmon bycatch from 2006 to 2014 was 115,190 chum salmon. In 2014, the pollock fishery caught 219,428 chum salmon.
Genetic information indicates that the majority of the chum salmon caught in the pollock fishery are of Asian origin (approximately 60 percent) while a smaller percentage (approximately 21 percent) originate from aggregate streams in western Alaska. Chum salmon from elsewhere in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and Canada comprise the remaining percentage of the bycatch (approximately 19 percent). While the genetics cannot differentiate hatchery-origin fish from wild Asian chum salmon, given the high proportion of Pacific Rim hatchery-released chum from Japan, much of the Asian origin chum observed in the bycatch is likely to be of Asian hatchery-origin. While Alaska chum salmon runs have indicated a history of volatility in run sizes, chum salmon stocks in Alaska are generally at higher levels of abundance than historical periods. Section 3.4 of the Analysis provides additional information about chum salmon biology, distribution, and stock assessments by river system or region (see
The Council and NMFS have been concerned about the potential impact of Chinook and chum salmon bycatch on returns to western Alaska given the relatively large proportion of bycatch from these river systems that occurs in the pollock fishery. Chinook salmon and chum salmon support commercial, subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries in their regions of origin. The Alaska Board of Fisheries adopts regulations through a public process to conserve salmon and to allocate salmon to the various users. The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages the salmon commercial, subsistence, sport, and personal use fisheries. The first management priority is to meet spawning escapement goals to sustain salmon resources for future generations. The next priority is for subsistence use under both State and Federal law. Salmon is a primary subsistence food in some areas. Subsistence fisheries management includes coordination with U.S. Federal agencies where Federal rules apply under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
In recent years of low Chinook salmon returns, the in-river harvest of western Alaska Chinook salmon has been severely restricted and, in some cases, river systems have not met escapement goals. Surplus fish beyond escapement needs and subsistence use are made available for other uses. Commercial fishing for Chinook salmon may provide the only source of income for many people who live in remote villages. Appendix A-4 of the Analysis provides an overview of the importance of subsistence salmon harvests and commercial salmon harvests (see
Over the last 20 years, the Council and NMFS have implemented several management measures to limit salmon bycatch in the BSAI trawl fisheries. Management measures have focused on minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch, chum salmon bycatch, and non-Chinook salmon bycatch. Non-Chinook bycatch is a category that includes all salmon species except Chinook salmon, but is comprised predominantly by chum salmon.
Most recently, NMFS implemented Amendment 84 to the FMP to address increases in Chinook salmon and non-Chinook (predominantly chum) salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery that were occurring despite PSC limits being reached and the closures of the Chinook Salmon Savings Area and Chum Salmon Savings Area (72 FR 61070, October 29, 2007) and Amendment 91 to the FMP, which implemented a program to manage Chinook salmon bycatch that provides incentives for each vessel to avoid Chinook salmon at all times (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010).
Amendment 84 was implemented to enhance the effectiveness of salmon bycatch measures by exempting pollock vessels from Chinook Salmon Savings Area and Chum Salmon Savings Area closures if they participate in an intercooperative agreement (ICA) to reduce salmon bycatch. The ICA allowed vessels participating in the pollock fishery to use their internal cooperative structure to reduce Chinook salmon and non-Chinook salmon bycatch using a method called the voluntary rolling hotspot system. The ICA operates in lieu of a fixed area closure and is required to identify and close areas of high salmon bycatch and move vessels to other areas. Amendment 84 required that parties to the ICA include the AFA cooperatives, the six CDQ groups, at least one third party group, including any organizations representing western Alaskans who depend on salmon and have an interest in salmon bycatch reduction, and at least one entity retained to facilitate bycatch avoidance behavior and information sharing. All AFA cooperatives and CDQ groups participate in the ICA.
Amendment 91 removed Chinook salmon bycatch from the Amendment 84 program and established a separate program to manage Chinook salmon. Amendment 91 combined a limit on the amount of Chinook salmon that may be caught incidentally with a novel approach designed to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable in all years and prevent bycatch from reaching the limit in most years while providing the fleet the flexibility to harvest the pollock TAC.
Amendment 91 established two PSC limits for the pollock fishery—60,000 and 47,591 Chinook salmon. Under Amendment 91, the PSC limit is 60,000 Chinook salmon if some or all of the pollock industry participates in an industry-developed contractual arrangement, called an incentive plan agreement (IPA) that establishes an incentive program to minimize bycatch at all levels of Chinook salmon abundance. Participation in an IPA is voluntary; however, any vessel or CDQ group that chooses not to participate in an IPA is subject to a restrictive opt-out allocation (also called a backstop cap). Since implementation, all AFA vessels have participated in an IPA.
To ensure participants develop effective IPAs, participants provide the Council and NMFS annual reports that describe the efforts each IPA is taking to ensure that each vessel does its best to avoid Chinook salmon at all times while fishing for pollock and, that collectively, bycatch is minimized in each year. The IPA system is based on being flexible, responsive, and able to be tailored by each sector to fit its operational needs. The IPAs that impose rewards for avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch, and/or penalties for failure to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch at the vessel level, warrant setting the PSC limit at 60,000 Chinook salmon. While the IPAs provide an incentive to minimize bycatch in all years to a level below the limit, a limit of 60,000 Chinook salmon
Under Amendment 91, the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit applies fleet-wide if the industry does not form any IPAs. This PSC limit was the approximate 10-year average of Chinook salmon bycatch from 1997 to 2006. The 47,591 PSC limit limits Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery if no other incentives, namely IPAs, are operating to minimize bycatch below this level.
Both PSC limits are divided between the A and B seasons and allocated to AFA sectors, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups as transferable PSC allocations. Transferability of the PSC mitigates the variation in the encounter rates of salmon bycatch among sectors, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups, in a given season. It allows eligible participants to obtain a larger portion of the PSC allocation in order to harvest their pollock allocation or to transfer surplus PSC allocation to other entities. When a transferable PSC allocation is reached, the affected sector, inshore cooperative, or CDQ group must stop fishing for pollock for the remainder of the season even if its pollock allocation has not been fully harvested.
The sector-level performance standard is an additional tool to ensure that the IPA is effective and that sectors do not fully harvest the Chinook salmon PSC allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit in most years. For a sector to continue to receive Chinook salmon PSC allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit, that sector may not exceed its annual threshold amount in any three years within seven consecutive years. If a sector fails this performance standard, it will permanently be allocated a portion of the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit. The risk of bearing the potential adverse economic impacts of a reduction from the 60,000 PSC limit to the 47,591 PSC limit creates incentives for fishery participants to cooperate in an effective IPA.
In April 2015, the Council recommended Amendment 110 to the FMP to create a comprehensive salmon bycatch avoidance program for the pollock fishery that works more effectively than the current salmon bycatch programs to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch and Alaska-origin chum salmon bycatch. Amendment 110 would modify the existing Chinook salmon bycatch program to make it more effective at avoiding Chinook salmon and incorporate measures to avoid chum salmon into the IPAs. In particular, the Council expressed that it remains extremely important to ensure that the Chinook salmon bycatch program is working as intended and to evaluate whether the incentives are strong in times of historically low Chinook salmon abundance. Thus the management measures included in Amendment 110 focus on retaining the incentives to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch at all levels of abundance as intended by Amendment 91.
The Council also expressed that it remains extremely important to provide the incentives to avoid Alaska-origin chum salmon while maintaining the flexibility to avoid Chinook salmon. The Council's action is designed to consider the importance of continued production of critical chum salmon runs in western Alaska by focusing on bycatch avoidance of Alaskan chum salmon runs. These runs have indicated a history of volatility in run sizes and an historic importance in the subsistence lifestyle of Alaskans. Additional protections to other chum stocks outside of Alaska are embedded in the Council's objective to avoid the high bycatch of chum salmon overall, recognizing that most non-Alaska chum salmon are likely from Asian hatcheries.
Amendment 110, if approved, would—
• Incorporate chum salmon avoidance into the IPAs established under Amendment 91 to the FMP and remove the non-Chinook salmon bycatch reduction ICA program previously established under Amendment 84 to the FMP;
• modify the requirements for the content of the IPAs to increase the incentives for fishermen to avoid Chinook salmon; and
• reduce the Chinook salmon PSC limit and performance standard in years with low Chinook salmon abundance.
Currently, Chinook salmon and chum salmon bycatch are managed under two different programs (Amendment 84 and Amendment 91). This has created inefficiencies and does not allow participants in the pollock fishery the flexibility to modify their harvest patterns and practices to effectively minimize both Chinook salmon and chum salmon bycatch. Adding chum salmon measures to the IPAs would make salmon bycatch management more effective, comprehensive, and efficient by increasing flexibility to respond to changing conditions and providing greater incentives to reduce bycatch of both salmon species. The chum salmon specific requirements in the implementing regulations for Amendment 84 sometimes prevent fishery participants from making decisions to avoid Chinook salmon when the vessels are encountering both chum salmon and Chinook salmon.
Amendment 110 would incorporate chum salmon avoidance into the IPAs established under Amendment 91. Chum salmon would no longer be managed under Amendment 84. However, Amendment 110 would maintain the current non-Chinook salmon PSC limit of 42,000 fish and the closure of the Chum Salmon Savings Area to pollock fishing when the PSC limit has been reached. Vessels that participate in an IPA would be exempt from the Chum Salmon Savings Area closure. The purpose of maintaining the non-Chinook salmon PSC limit and the Chum Salmon Savings Area closure is to provide additional incentives for vessels to join an IPA and as back-stop chum salmon measures for those vessels that choose not to participate in an IPA. Incorporating chum salmon into the IPAs meets the purpose and need for this action by providing measures to prevent high chum salmon bycatch, while allowing for participants in the pollock fishery the flexibility to avoid Alaska chum stocks and to adapt quickly to changing conditions through their coordinated management under the IPAs. In doing so, the Council intended to strike an appropriate balance between regulatory requirements and adaptive management for chum salmon bycatch.
Amendment 110 would modify the IPAs to increase the incentives for fishermen to avoid Chinook salmon. The Council and NMFS recognize that the IPAs were effective at providing incentives for each vessel to avoid Chinook salmon, but that additional measures are necessary to address higher Chinook salmon PSC rates observed during October (the last month when the pollock fishery is authorized to operate) and to address concerns with individual vessels that consistently have significantly higher Chinook salmon PSC rates relative to other vessels fishing at the same time. The Council and NMFS wanted to ensure the use of salmon excluder devices (
Amendment 110 would add a new lower Chinook salmon PSC limit and performance standard for the pollock fishery in years of low Chinook salmon abundance. The Council and NMFS considered a lower performance standard and PSC limit would be appropriate at low levels of Chinook salmon abundance in western Alaska to accommodate the fact that most of the Chinook salmon bycatch comes from western Alaska. These provisions work in conjunction with the change to the IPA requirements to ensure that Chinook salmon bycatch is avoided at all times, particularly at low abundance levels.
Each year NMFS would determine whether Chinook salmon abundance was low based on information provided by the State of Alaska. Annually, the State would provide an index of abundance based on the post-season in-river Chinook salmon run size for the Kuskokwim, Unalakleet, and Upper Yukon aggregate stock grouping. When this index is less than or equal to 250,000 Chinook salmon, then the new lower performance standard and low PSC limit would apply.
In low Chinook salmon abundance years, NMFS would set the performance standard at 33,318 Chinook salmon and the PSC limit at 45,000 Chinook salmon. NMFS would publish the lower PSC limit and performance standard in the annual harvest specifications. In years when abundance is above 250,000 Chinook salmon, NMFS would manage under the current 47,591 Chinook salmon performance standard and 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit established under Amendment 91.
The inclusion of a lower PSC limit and performance standard is based on the need for additional incentives to reduce bycatch when Chinook salmon stocks are critically low in order to minimize the impact of the pollock fishery on the salmon stocks. Any additional fish returning to Alaska rivers improves the ability to meet the escapement goals, which is necessary for long-term sustainability of Chinook salmon and the people reliant on salmon fisheries. While the performance standard is the operational limit in the IPAs, reducing the 60,000 PSC limit is also appropriate given the potential for decreased bycatch reduction incentives should a sector exceed its performance standard before the PSC limit is reached. The reduced PSC limit is intended to encourage vessels to avoid bycatch in years of low abundance and to set a maximum permissible PSC limit that reduces the risk of adverse impact on stocks in western Alaska during periods of low abundance.
NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 110 through the end of the comment period (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from the Scotts Company and Monsanto Company seeking a determination of nonregulated status of creeping bentgrass designated as event ASR368, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the Scotts Company and Monsanto Company petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 8, 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
The petition is also available on the APHIS Web site at:
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 15-300-01p) from the Scotts Company of Marysville, OH, and Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO (Scotts/Monsanto), seeking a determination of nonregulated status of creeping bentgrass (
As described in the petition, ASR368 bentgrass contains the
Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment after completion of the tests. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations and our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments will be considered in the development of our decisionmaking documents. As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a plant pest risk assessment to assess its plant pest risk and the appropriate environmental documentation—either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to provide the Agency with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the petition request. For petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA, APHIS will follow our published process for soliciting public comment (see footnote 1) and publish a separate notice in the
Should APHIS determine that an EIS is necessary, APHIS will complete the NEPA EIS process in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508) and APHIS' NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR part 372).
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
January 13, 2016, 5:00 p.m. PST.
City Hall, Council Chamber, 3031 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, CA 90503.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on January 13, 2016, starting at 5:00 p.m. PST at Torrance City Hall Council Chamber, 3031 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, CA 90503. The Board will discuss its investigation of the incident at the ExxonMobil Refinery on February 18, 2015. CSB Staff will present interim findings to the Board. Following the staff presentation, the Board will hear from a panel of experts on process safety management (PSM) reform in the State of California.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.
This meeting will be webcast for those who cannot attend in person. Please visit
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Shauna Lawhorne, Public Affairs Specialist,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014. The review covers two mandatory respondents, Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (“Fine Furniture”) and Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (“Dalian Penghong”). We preliminarily find that both respondents made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”).
Lilit Astvatsatrian or William Horn AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 and (202) 482-2615.
The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Export prices and constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (“NV”) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on the evidence presented in Dalian Penghong's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find (1) that Dalian Penghong is affiliated with a certain glue producer within the meaning of sections 771(33)(A), (F), and (G) of the Act; and (2) that Dalian Penghong and Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Shumaike”) are affiliated within the meaning of section 773(33)(F) of the Act. Additionally, we are preliminarily treating Dalian Penghong and Shumaike as a single entity for antidumping duty purposes, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.401(f), because we find that those two affiliated companies have a high level of common ownership, production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling to restructure manufacturing priorities, and that there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production.
The Department preliminarily finds that nineteen companies subject to this review did not establish eligibility for a separate rate. As such, we preliminarily determine they are part of the PRC-wide entity.
For companies subject to this review that have established their entitlement to a separate rate, the Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME antidumping duty cases.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses (coated paper) from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Terre Keaton Stefanova or Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280 or (202) 482-1766, respectively.
On November 17, 2010, the Department published the antidumping duty orders on coated paper from Indonesia and the PRC.
The merchandise subject to these orders is coated paper. The merchandise subject to these orders are provided for under subheadings: 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 4810.39 and 4810.92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on coated paper from Indonesia and the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the second administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily determine that JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates, including JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., (collectively, JA Solar) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Cynthia Baker or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6251, and (202) 482-3586, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the CVD order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building integrated materials. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Department memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China; 2013,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy, (
A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided at Appendix I to this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. For those companies named in the
There are two companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Trina Solar) and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (Suntech).
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in reaching these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
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).
The information collected from the vessel position reports is used by NOAA and the Commission to help ensure compliance with domestic laws and the Commission's conservation and management measures, and are necessary in order to the United Stated to satisfy its obligations under the Convention.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 March 8, 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 Dr. Vernon R. Leeworthy (240) 533-0647 or
This request is for reinstatement with change of a currently approved information collection.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431,
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) specifies that each NMS should revise their management plans on a five-year cycle. The FGBNMS has begun the management plan review process. The NMSA also allows for the creation of Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs). SACs are comprised of representatives of all NMS stakeholders. Management Plan Review (MPR) is a public process and the SACs, along with a series of public meetings, are used to help scope out issues in revising the management plans and regulations. SAC Working Groups are often used to evaluate management or regulatory alternatives. In the current MPR for the FGBNMS, two major issues have emerged: Boundary expansion and research-only areas. In addition, several new or modified regulations are being considered to meet specific needs for diver safety and resource protection (no anchoring/mooring buoy use requirement and a more stringent pollution discharge regulation).
To address each one these issues, a socioeconomic panel composed of NOAA staff and social scientists from other agencies, or from universities, developed information and tools to assess the socioeconomic impacts of management strategies and regulatory alternatives. The information and tools developed in this process will also provide the necessary information for meeting agency requirements for socioeconomic impact analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12086 (Regulatory Impact Review) and an Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (impacts on small businesses). Our initial plan, as the first step in the assessment process, was to interview three key sanctuary user groups—commercial fishers, for-hire recreational dive operations and for-hire recreational fishing operations (charter and party/head boat operations)—with questions focusing on: (1) General information, economic information and trip costs and (2) knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of sanctuary management strategies and regulations.
In 2011-2012, the for-hire dive and fishing industry interviews were completed. The commercial fisheries interviews were completed in 2013.
The FGBNMS management and SAC now want to evaluate moving the scope of boundary expansion eastward; this will require us to gather the same information for the three user groups in areas east of the original data collection.
Interviews will be conducted face-to-face and recorded on paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a four-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, January 25-28, 2016, starting at 8:30 a.m. daily.
The meeting will be held at the Perdido Beach Resort, 27200 Perdido Beach Boulevard, Orange Beach, AL 36561; telephone: (251) 981-9811.
Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Gulf Council will begin with updates and presentations from management committees. The Joint Administrative Policy & Budget Management Committee will review the Ad Hoc Advisory Panels and appointment terms. Under other business, the committee will hear an update on the Advisory Panel background checks by the Gulf States. The Data Collection Committee will receive a presentation on transition considerations for Charter Vessel Electronic Reporting, review Final Action—Electronic Charter Vessel Reporting Amendment and public comments. The Shrimp Management Committee will discuss final action on Shrimp Amendment 17A—Addressing the Expiration of the Shrimp Permit Moratorium. They will receive a summary from the public hearings and written comments; review draft codified text; and have a discussion on NOAA's Turtle Excluder Device (TED)
The Reef Fish Management Committee will discuss taking final action on Reef Fish Amendment 39—Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper; and, review draft Amendment 41—Red Snapper Management for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and draft Amendment 42—Federal Reef Fish Headboat Management. After lunch, the committee will discuss draft Options—Red Snapper Recreational annual catch target (ACT) Adjustment and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) season projection and probability methodology. The Reef Fish Management Committee will discuss gray triggerfish acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations and provide guidance to staff on the rebuilding plan parameters. Finally, the Reef Fish Management Committee will discuss the Ad Hoc Private Recreational Advisory Panel, and review any other business.
The Mackerel Management Committee will review the Joint Public Hearing Draft for Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Amendment 26—Changes in Allocations, Stock Boundaries and Sale Provisions for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel; and review the CMP Advisory Panel recommendations.
The Full Council will convene mid-morning with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes; and review Exempt Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications, if any. The Council will then receive presentations on Landing Summaries, Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Traceability, and NOAA's Catch Share Review Guidelines. After lunch, the Council will receive public testimony (1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.) on Final Action Reef Fish Amendment 39—Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper, Final Action Generic Electronic Charter Vessel Reporting Amendment, and for Final Action Shrimp Amendment 17A—Addressing the Expiration of the Shrimp Permit Moratorium; and hold an open public comment period regarding any other fishery issues or concern. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period.
The Council will receive committee reports from the Administrative Policy/Budget, Mackerel, Data Collection, Shrimp, and Reef Fish Management Committees; and, vote on Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP) applications, if any. Lastly, the Council will discuss Other Business items; and receive summary reports from supporting agencies: South Atlantic Council, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of State.
The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's Web site at
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, January 26, 27, and 28, 2016, starting at 9 a.m. on January 26, and at 8:30 a.m. on both January 27 and 28.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portsmouth Harborside Hotel, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431-2300, or online at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
After introductions and any announcements, the Council meeting will open with brief reports from the NEFMC Chairman and Executive Director, the NOAA Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and Office of Law Enforcement representatives, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine
Following a lunch break, the Council's Risk Policy Working Group will provide an update on finalizing what is being termed a “roadmap” that contains guidance on the implementation of the NEFMC's recently approved risk policy. The Atlantic Herring Committee will then provide a briefing on the following: (a) The development of Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP), an action that will the focus on long-term harvest strategies for Atlantic herring, including an acceptable biological catch control rule that explicitly accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem, and the issue of localized depletion; (b) revising the Georges Bank haddock catch cap accountability measure through a framework adjustment to the Herring FMP; and (c) the use of portside data in river herring/shad catch cap monitoring.
The second day of the meeting will begin with an overview to be provided by NOAA Fisheries on its Fishery Dependent Data Project, to be followed by a Council and public comments on the topic. The Observer Policy Committee will report on its development of an Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment (IFM). At this meeting, the committee will review a draft environmental assessment and select preferred alternatives for the omnibus elements of the action for purposes of public review. They include: Standard cost responsibilities, framework provisions for IFM programs, service provider requirements, a prioritization process to allocate federal funding, and a monitoring set-aside option. The Council is expected to select preferred alternatives for the herring and mackerel alternatives in this draft amendment at its April 2016 meeting.
After a lunch break, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will present its recommendations, if any, for a revised overfishing limit and an acceptable biological catch for witch flounder for fishing years 2016-18. The Council will receive an update on additional topics discussed by the SSC at their January 20 meeting, as appropriate. During the Groundfish Committee's report, the Council expects to take final action on the 2016-18 fishery specifications for witch flounder and receive an update on the development of measures to address its the 2016 groundfish priorities. These include potential changes to the at-sea monitoring program and the management process for recreational fishing. The day will conclude with a review of NOAA's Draft Catch Share Guidance document and approval of NEFMC comments on the draft.
The final meeting day will begin with an overview of the Northeast Regional Planning Body's (RPB) Regional Ocean Plan, followed by Council discussion of the plan and other work products developed by the RPB. The Small Mesh Multispecies Committee will present an overview of the scoping comments received for Amendment 22 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP and ask for approval of the range of issues to be addressed in the action. The major topic under consideration is the development of a limited access program for the small mesh fishery, which is comprised of whiting (silver and offshore hake) and red hake. The Council also will consider Northeast Regional Coordinating Council-recommended changes to the Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee process. The Council meeting will adjourn after its members address any other outstanding Council business.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Public Hearings/Scoping and Advisory Panel Meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold a series of public hearings/scoping meetings pertaining to Amendments 41 and 37 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic, and Atlantic Generic Charterboat/Headboat Reporting Amendment, and Amendment 26 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (mackerel) Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Scoping comments will be accepted for Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 addressing management measures for mutton snapper. Public Hearings will be held for Snapper Grouper Amendment 37 pertaining to management measures for hogfish, the Atlantic Charterboat/Headboat Reporting Amendment, and Mackerel Amendment 26 addressing management measures for king mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Note that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will solicit public input on mutton snapper management measures for Florida State waters during selected public hearing/scoping meetings held in Florida (see
The series of public hearings/scoping meetings will be held from January 25-February 8, 2016. The public hearing/scoping meetings will be held from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. with the exception of the public hearing/scoping meeting in Morehead City that will begin at 5 p.m. and a public hearing via webinar that will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting of the Mackerel Advisory Panel
Registration is required for the public hearing/scoping meeting via webinar. Registration information will be posted on the SAFMC Web site at
See
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The public hearing/scoping meetings will be held on the following dates and locations:
1. January 25, 2016—Richmond Hill City Center, 520 Cedar Street, Richmond Hill, GA 31324; phone: (912) 445-0043.
2. January 26, 2016—Hilton Garden Inn Charleston Airport, 5265 International Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; phone: (843) 308-9330.
3. January 27, 2016—Murrells Inlet Community Center, 4450 Murrells Inlet Road, Murrells Inlet, SC 29576; phone: (843) 651-7373.
4. January 28, 2016—NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557; phone: (252) 726-7021.
5. February 1, 2016—Hilton Garden Inn, 180 SW 18th Avenue, Dania Beach, FL 33004; phone: (954) 924-9204. This hearing will be held in conjunction with FWC.
6. February 2, 2016—Hawks Cay Resort, 61 Hawks Cay Blvd., Duck Key, FL 33050; phone: (305) 743-7000. This hearing will be held in conjunction with FWC.
7. February 3, 2016—Marriott Beachside Hotel, 3841 N. Roosevelt Blvd., Key West, FL 33040; phone: (305) 296-8100. This hearing will be held in conjunction with FWC.
8. February 3, 2016—International Palms Resort & Conference Center, 1300 North A1A, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931; phone: (321) 783-2271. A meeting of the Council's King and Spanish Mackerel Advisory Panel will be held in conjunction with this public hearing.
9. February 8, 2016—Public hearings via webinar beginning at 6 p.m. for the Atlantic Charter/For-Hire Reporting Amendment and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Amendment 26.
The Council is soliciting public scoping comments on proposed measures in Amendment 41 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing mutton snapper. The measures are based on a recent stock assessment for mutton snapper and include specifying the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), Maximum Stock Size Threshold (MSST), revising the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and Optimum Yield (OY) and recreational Annual Catch Target. The amendment also includes options to modify the recreational bag limit.
Public hearings are being held for the following amendments:
1. Atlantic Generic Charter/For-Hire Reporting Amendment to the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper, Atlantic Dolphin Wahoo and Coastal Migratory Pelagic fisheries. The amendment includes actions to require mandatory electronic reporting for charter (six-pack) vessels and modifies existing reporting requirements for headboats. The reporting requirements would affect vessels involved in the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper fishery, Dolphin Wahoo fishery, and Coastal Migratory Pelagic fishery along the Atlantic coast.
2. Amendment 37 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing hogfish. The amendment includes actions to modify the management boundary between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, establish two separate stocks in the South Atlantic with a “Georgia/North Carolina” stock and a “Florida Keys/East Florida” stock for management purposes, specify the MSY, MSST, ACLs and ACTs for both stocks and establish a rebuilding plan for the Florida Keys/East Florida stock. The rebuilding plan includes measures to increase the minimum size limit, establish a commercial trip limit, reduce the recreational bag limit, and establish a recreational fishing season. The amendment would also establish Accountability Measures for both stocks.
3. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Amendment 26 addresses management measures for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico king mackerel. Actions in the amendment include modifying the management/stock boundary for Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel, updating the biological reference points and revising the ABC, OY, ACLs and recreational ACT for Atlantic Group king mackerel, creating an incidental catch allowance of Atlantic group king mackerel caught in the shark gillnet fishery, establishing split season commercial quotas for harvest of Atlantic group king mackerel in the Southern Zone, and establishing boundaries and trip limits for a [new] Florida East Coast management zone for Atlantic group king mackerel. The amendment includes the following actions specific to Gulf group king mackerel: Update biological reference points and revise the ACL, revise the commercial zone quotas, revise the recreational and commercial allocation, and modify recreational bag limit.
The Council will hold a meeting of its King and Spanish Mackerel Advisory Panel in conjunction with the public hearing scheduled for February 3, 2016, from 12 p.m. until 4 p.m. The advisory panel will review Coastal Migratory Pelagic Amendment 26 and the Atlantic Generic For-Hire/Charterboat Reporting Amendment and provide recommendations.
Written comments on the amendments may be directed to Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, SAFMC (see
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
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 March 8, 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 Daniel Studt, (562) 980-4073, or
This request is for an extension of a current information collection.
The information required by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, is needed to: (1) Document the dolphin-safe status of tuna import shipments; (2) verify that import shipments of fish were not harvested by large scale, high seas driftnets; and (3) verify that tuna was not harvested by an embargoed nation or one that is otherwise prohibited from exporting tuna to the United States. Forms are submitted by importers and processors.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include a secure file transfer protocol Web site for electronic forms, or postal mail.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 11/20/2015 (80 FR 72710-72711), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to furnish the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Effective Date: 2/7/2016.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 1/16/2015 (80 FR 2400-2401) and 10/2/2015 (80 FR 59740-59741, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
On 12/4/2015 (80 FR 75857-75858), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
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 16-10 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
This request also includes the following Non-Major Defense Equipment; AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponders, Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (DAGR), AN/ARC-201D SINCGARS Airborne Radio Systems, AN/ARC-220 High Frequency Airborne Communication Systems, AN/ARC-231(V)(C) Airborne VHF/UHF/LOS SATCOM Communications Systems,
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of:
This request also includes the following Non-Major Defense Equipment; AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponders, Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (DAGR), AN/ARC-201D SINCGARS Airborne Radio Systems, AN/ARC-220 High Frequency Airborne Communication Systems, AN/ARC-231(V)(C) Airborne VHF/UHF/LOS SATCOM Communications Systems, KY-100 Secure Communication Systems, KIV-77 Common IFF Cryptographic Computers, AN/AVS-6 Aviator's Night Vision Systems, AN/ARN-147 Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni Ranging/Instrument Landing System Receiver, AN/PYQ-10(C) Simple Key Loaders, AN/ARN-153 Tactical Airborne Navigation (TACAN) System, Spare Parts, Tools, Ground Support Equipment, Technical Publications, Contractor and U.S. Government Technical Services.
The total estimated value of MDE is $105 million. The total overall estimated value is $180 million.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner which has been, and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress within the Pacific region and globally.
The proposed sale of the CH-47F aircraft will improve Australia's heavy lift capability. Australia will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The CH-47F aircraft will replace Australia's retiring CH-47D aircraft. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be the Boeing Helicopter Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There are no known offset agreements at this time associated with this proposed sale.
Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The CH-47F aircraft, which includes two T55-GA-714A engines, has been identified as Major Defense Equipment (MDE). The CH-47F is a medium lift, newly manufactured rotary winged aircraft. The CH-47F has the Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit, which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The Navigation System will have two Embedded GPS/INS (EGIs), two Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS), one ARN-149 Automatic Direction Finder, one ARN-147 (VOR/ILS marker Beacon System), one ARN-153 TACAN, two air data computers, one Radar Altimeter system. The communications suite is as follows: Two each AN/ARC-231 Multi-mode radios, and two each AN/ARC-201D SINCGARS radios. The Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) will be the APX-123A, which provides the additional functionality of Mode 5 capability. Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) will not be provided on this LOA. Support and fielding for the CH-47Fs and installed CAAS would require one copy of technical documentation, along with a Contractor Field Representative.
2. The AN/APX-123A, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder is a space diversity transponder and is installed on several military platforms. When installed in conjunction with platform antennas and the Remote Control Unit (RCU) (or other appropriate control unit), the transponder provides identification, altitude and surveillance reporting in response to interrogations from airborne, ground-based and/or surface interrogators. The transponder provides operational capabilities for Mark XII IFF capabilities of Modes 1, 2, 3/A, C, 4, 5 capable and Mode S (levels 1, 2, and 3 capable). Additionally, the AN/APX-123A also provides automated ID, position and latitude of the aircraft, and unencrypted Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) and is compatible with the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) II equipment. The AN/APX-123A is classified SECRET when loaded with software.
3. The AN/ARC-201D is a tactical airborne military VHF radio system consisting of Receiver-Transmitter, Radio RT-1478D/ARC-201D(V), Battery Box CY-8515/ARC-201(V) and; Mounting Base MT-7101/ARC-201D(V). This radio system is capable of secure COMSEC, anti-jam, voice and data communications in any of 2320 channels and two frequency-hopping (FH) modes. The radio is interconnected and interoperated with the aircraft's MIL-STD-1553B bus controller equipment. The AN/ARC-201D is classified SECRET when loaded with software.
4. The AN/ARC-220 is a multifunctional, fully digital signal processing (DSP) high frequency (HF) radio intended for airborne applications. Advanced communications features made possible by DSP technology include embedded Automatic Link Establishment (ALE), Serial Tone Data Modem, and Anti-jam Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM) functions. The AN/ARC-220 Advanced HF Aircraft Communications System is applicable for a variety of tactical rotary-wing and fixed-wing airborne applications. In addition to offering enhanced voice communications capabilities, the AN/ARC-220 is an advanced data communications system capable of providing reliable digital
5. The AN/ARC-231(V)(C) is a secure communication system that provides Line-of-Sight (LOS) communications and Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) satellite communications (SATCOM), as well Voice and data communications capabilities. In addition to Satellite Communications, the AN/ARC-231(V)(C) provides Secure/Electronic CounterCounter Measures (ECCM) communications Single Channel Ground and Airborne System (SINCGARS) and HAVE QUICK (HQ) waveforms. The AN/ARC-231(V)(C) is classified SECRET when loaded with software.
6. The TSEC KY-100 is COMSEC equipment that has sensitive technology and is classified SECRET if software fill is installed. A separate case with NSA would be required to procure this equipment. The KY-100 is classified SECRET when loaded with software.
7. Blue Force Tracker—Aviation (BFT-A) within the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade & Below program, BFT-AVN is a network system with varied configurations utilizing integrated UHF/VHF/FM voice/data communications and GPS positioning data that allow integration into various Army, joint, and coalition rotary and fixed-wing aircraft types. The system provides commanders, staffs, and other key personnel situational awareness of aviation assets, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. With BFT-AVN, aircrews are able to view positions of friendly forces as well as enemy locations. The system also enables rapid, dynamic tasking and re-tasking of those assets to accomplish aviation missions in complex environments. Another key capability of BFT-AVN is the ability to send and receive data and messages beyond line-of-sight, overcoming the communication challenges of distance and terrain. The BFT-A is UNCLASSIFIED.
Note: The following items are not identified in the CH-47F Security Classification Guide and sensitive technology classification could not be determined. Therefore the assumption is that they may contain sensitive technology.
8. The Embedded GPS/INS (EGI) unit CN-1689-(H-764GU) contains sensitive GPS technology. The EGI+429 is a self-contained, all-attitude navigation system providing outputs of linear and angular acceleration, linear and angular velocity, position, attitude (roll, pitch), platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) synchronized time. The EGI is UNCLASSIFIED/Missile Technology Regime (MTCR) Controlled.
9. The AN/ARN-149, Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) Receiver, is a low frequency radio that provides automatic compass bearing on any radio signal within the frequency range of 100 to 2199.5 kHz as well as navigation where a commercial AM broadcast signal is the only available navigation aid. The AN/ARN-149 is UNCLASSIFIED.
10. The AN/ARN-153, Tactical Airborne Navigation (TACAN) System, is a full featured navigational system that supports four modes of operation: receive mode; transmit receive mode; air-to-air receive mode; and air-to-air transmit-receive mode. The ARN-153 is UNCLASSIFIED.
11. The AN/ARN-147, Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni Ranging/Instrument Landing System Receiver that provides internal MIL-STD-1553B capability and is MIL-E-5400 class II qualified. The ARN-147 is UNCLASSIFIED.
12. The KIV-77, is a Common Crypto Applique for Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) that provides Mode 4/5 capability. The KIV-77 is SECRET when loaded with software.
13. The AN/PYQ-10 (C) Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a ruggedized, portable, hand-held fill device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring electronic key material and data between compatible end cryptographic units (ECU) and communications equipment. The AN/PYQ-10(C) is SECRET when loaded with software.
14. The ramifications of this technology in the hands of an adversary are severe. Should a fill device or cryptographic asset with the accompanying radio system become compromised, it would enable an adversary to intercept our communications, both verbal and encrypted until the COMSEC keys were changed.
15. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
16. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(5)(C) 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 0A-16 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Date: 29 July 2013
Military Department: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal reports the replacement of the original AN/FPS-132 Block 5 EWR with the AN/FPS-132 Block 15 EWR. The Block 15 EWR has an increased maximum range. Upgrading the status of this equipment will result in an estimated net increase in MDE cost of $800 million. The revised estimated total value is $2 billion, with the revised MDE value
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
1. The AN/FPS-132 Block 15 supports Missile Defense, Space Situational Awareness, and Missile Warning mission areas. The Block 15 system employs 3 electronically steered phased array radar faces to provide 360 degree azimuth coverage. The Block 15 system is capable of detecting ballistic missiles up to a maximum range of 5,000 km. The AN/FPS-132 Block 15 hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The AN/FPS-132 Block 15 software and the data produced are classified SECRET REL QATAR.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
National Defense University, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Defense University Board of Visitors (BOV) will take place.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 28, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and will continue on Friday, January 29, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.
The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155B, the National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.
The point of contact for this notice of open meeting is Ms. Joycelyn Stevens at (202) 685-0079, Fax (202) 685-3920 or
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public.
The future agenda will include discussion on accreditation compliance, organizational management, strategic planning, resource management, and other matters of interest to the National Defense University. Limited space made available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or email to the point of contact person listed in
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(5)(C) 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 0B-16 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Date: 26 October 2011
Military Department: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal reports the inclusion of the following quantity of items:
Adding an additional aircraft to this case results in a net MDE increase of $107 million, and a non-MDE increase of $29 million. The revised estimated total value is $1.336 billion, with the revised MDE value constituting $757 million of this new total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.
2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., January 27, 2016.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.
Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemption to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.
The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at
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 March 8, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the
Take notice that on December 24, 2015, City of Colton, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Colton 2015 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and Existing Transmission Contracts Update to be effective 1/1/2016.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Presidio Border Crossing Project (Project) proposed by Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC (Trans-Pecos) in the above-referenced docket. Trans-Pecos requests authorization to construct, operate, and maintain a new natural gas pipeline in Presidio County, Texas.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Presidio Border Crossing Project would involve construction of approximately 1,093 feet of FERC-jurisdictional 42-inch-diameter pipeline, installed beneath the Rio Grande River. The new pipeline would transport natural gas to a new delivery interconnect with pipeline facilities owned by an affiliate of Trans-Pecos at the United States-Mexico border for expanding electric generation and industrial market needs in Mexico.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the Project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before February 3, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-500-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
On September 30, 2015, Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, KS filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed WaterOne Kansas River Hydroelectric Project No. 14716-000, to be located at the existing WaterOne Kansas River Weir on the Kansas River, near the town of Kanas City, in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The WaterOne Kansas River Weir is owned by the Water District No.1 of Johnson County, KS.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 1,284-foot-long weir structure comprised of eighteen 54-foot-diameter substrate filled, concrete capped cells; (2) a new 42-foot-long, 72-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 550-kilowatt vertical Kaplan hydropower turbine-generators having a total combined generating capacity of 1.1 megawatts; (3) a new 20-foot-long by 20-foot-wide switchyard containing a 480 volt(V) to 2,400V step-up transformer; (4) a new 400 to 500-foot-long, 2,400V underground transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 7,700,000 kilowatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 31, 2015, Central Maine Power Company submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.
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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
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 December 31, 2015, the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission submitted a Reactive Compensation Rate Filing.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2016.
Take notice that on December 22, 2015, City of Anaheim, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Anaheim 2016 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment to be effective 1/1/2016.
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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
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 December 31, 2015, NSTAR Electric Company submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.
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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2016.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b. Project No.: 2457-041
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k. The Project
The dam for the Eastman Falls Project is located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Franklin Falls Flood Control Dam (Franklin Falls Dam). While the project boundary for the Eastman Falls Project extends through and upstream of Franklin Falls Dam, it does not encompass Franklin Falls Dam or any Corps facilities.
The existing project consists of: (1) A 341-foot-long, 37-foot-high concrete gravity dam and spillway with a crest elevation of 301 feet above mean sea level (msl) that includes: (i) 6-foot-high steel flashboards with a crest elevation of 307 feet msl; and (ii) a concrete waste gate structure that includes a 16-foot-high, 30-foot-wide steel slide gate; (2) a 582-acre, 9-mile-long impoundment, with a normal maximum pool elevation of 307 feet msl; (3) a 342-foot-long, 8-foot-deep floating louver array; (4) generating facility No. 1 that includes: (i) A 12.5-foot-high, 15-foot-wide headgate structure with a 23.75-foot-high, 17-foot-wide trashrack with 3.5-inch clear-bar spacing; (ii) a 12.5-foot-high, 12.5-foot-wide, 21-foot-long concrete penstock; (iii) a 40-foot-high, 20-foot-wide stop log slot; (iv) a 29-foot-long, 29-foot-wide, 34-foot-high concrete and masonry powerhouse containing a single 1.8-MW turbine-generator unit; and (v) a 23-foot-wide, 14.5-foot-high, 60-foot-long draft tube; (5) generating facility No. 2 facility that includes: (i) An intake structure with a 20-foot-high, 21-foot-wide headgate with two 12.3-foot-wide, 9.3-foot-high trashracks with 3.5-inch clear-bar spacing; (ii) a 20.8-foot-high, 22.4-foot-wide stop log slot; (iii) a 88-foot-long, 78-foot-wide, 56-foot-high concrete and masonry powerhouse containing a single 4.6 MW turbine-generator unit; (iv) a 23-foot-wide, 14.5-foot-high, 60-foot-long draft tube; (6) a 100-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt transmission line that connects the turbine-generator units to the regional grid; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The Eastman Falls Project operates in a run-of-river mode. The existing license (Article 401) requires that the project release a continuous minimum flow of 410 cubic feet per second (cfs), or inflow (whichever is less). PSNH proposes to continue run-of-river operation and to eliminate the requirement to release a minimum flow.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. You may also register online at
n. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that on December 31, 2015, the Connecticut Light and Power Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.
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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
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
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2016.
Take notice that on December 31, 2015, New Hampshire Transmission, LLC submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.
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
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2016.
Take notice that on December 31, 2015, The United Illuminating Company submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.
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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 21, 2016.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 29, 2015, Heartland Consumers Power District submitted a response to the December 11, 2015 Deficiency Letter.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission 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:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the San Elizario Crossing Project (Project), proposed by Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC (Comanche Trail) in the above-referenced docket. Comanche Trail requests authorization to construct new border crossing pipeline facilities to export up to 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas at the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico. The pipeline would be installed via horizontal directional drill beneath the Rio Grande River.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Project includes the installation of approximately 1,086 feet of 42-inch-diameter pipeline. The new pipeline would transport gas to a new delivery interconnect with pipeline facilities owned by an affiliate of Comanche Trail at the United States-Mexico border for expanding electric generation and industrial market needs in Mexico.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before February 4, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-503-000 with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 27, 2016 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Central Time, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment.
The meeting will be held at 77 W. Jackson, 19th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. For those unable to attend in
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this meeting may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
The Board consists of 16 members appointed by EPA's Administrator in her capacity as IATF Chair. Members serve as representatives of state, local and tribal government, environmental groups, agriculture, business, transportation, educational institutions, and as technical experts.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 4, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
2.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR15-352, Occupational Safety and Health Training Project Grants.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus from Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of human cells, tissues, and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), with recommendations concerning the use of FDA-licensed nucleic acid tests (NAT) in donor testing for hepatitis B virus (HBV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supplement previous FDA recommendations to HCT/P establishments concerning donor testing for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), in the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated August 2007 (2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance).
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 on 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 April 7, 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
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft 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 draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jessica T. Walker, 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 draft document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus from Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of HCT/Ps, with recommendations concerning the use of FDA-licensed NAT in donor testing for HBV DNA. FDA considers the use of FDA-licensed HBV NAT in testing HCT/Ps donors to be necessary to adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of HBV. The FDA-licensed HBV NAT can detect evidence of the viral infection at an earlier stage than the HBsAg and total anti-HBc tests. Therefore, FDA recommends the use of FDA-licensed HBV NAT for testing donors of HCT/Ps for evidence of infection with HBV.
HBV is a major global public health concern and has been transmitted by blood transfusions and tissue transplantation. Available literature has indicated possible transmissions of HBV by hematopoietic stem cells and blood with HBV NAT positive/hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) positive/HBsAg negative blood, irrespective of anti-HBc test results. In blood donors, adding the HBV NAT testing for HBV reduces the residual risk of transmission of HBV infection beyond that which can be achieved by screening donors using only HBsAg and total anti-HBc tests. In addition, it can detect breakthrough infections in previously vaccinated individuals who are exposed to the virus, and HBV mutants appear to be more likely detected by HBV NAT than by HBsAg assays.
In the United States, there are currently FDA-licensed HBV NAT assays with an indication for screening donor blood samples for Whole Blood and Blood components, other living donors (individual organ donors when specimens are obtained while the donor's heart is still beating), and blood specimens from cadaveric (non-heart-beating) donors. Some of these are multiplex assays that can simultaneously detect HIV, HCV, and HBV in a single blood specimen, thus improving the feasibility of routine NAT testing for HBV. By analogy to the experience in the blood donor setting, it is reasonable to expect that the residual risk of transmission of HBV infection would be reduced by adding HBV NAT to the testing strategy for HCT/P donors. HBV NAT's potential utility in further reducing risk of HBV transmission by transplantation is mainly restricted to the early HBsAg-negative phase of infection. In summary, the available scientific data and the availability of FDA-licensed assays support a recommendation that all HCT/Ps donors should be tested using an FDA-licensed HBV NAT. The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supplement previous FDA recommendations to HCT/P establishments concerning donor testing for HBsAg and total anti-HBc, in the 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance.
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 the “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus from Donors of 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.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft 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.
The “TOPAS Treatment for Fecal Incontinence” is intended to treat women with fecal incontinence (also referred to as accidental bowel leakage) who have failed more conservative therapies.
On February 26, 2016, during session I, the committee will discuss and make recommendations regarding the reclassification of urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from class I to class II. The applicable product codes are those related to urogynecologic surgical mesh as follows:
• OTN and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, synthetic, urogynecologic, for stress urinary incontinence, female, multi-incision;”
• PAG and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, non-synthetic, urogynecologic, for stress urinary incontinence, female, multi-incision;”
• PAH and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, synthetic, urogynecologic, for stress urinary incontinence, female, single-incision mini-sling;”
• OTO and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, synthetic, urogynecologic, for apical vaginal and uterine prolapse, transabdominally placed;”
• PAJ and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, non-synthetic, urogynecologic, for apical vaginal and uterine prolapse, transabdominally placed;”
• OTP and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, synthetic, urogynecologic, for pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginally placed” and
• PAI and the associated device classification name, “mesh, surgical, non-synthetic, urogynecologic, for pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginally placed.”
Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective IFU/Intended Use (IU) statements are:
• Urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation is used:
○ IFU/IU: To aid in insertion, placement, fixation, or anchoring of surgical mesh for procedures including transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair, sacrocolpopexy (transabdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair), treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Examples of such surgical instrumentation include needle passers and trocars, needle guides, fixation tools, and tissue anchors.
The committee, during session II, will discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LKX” and the associated device classification name, “Device, Thermal, Hemorrhoids.” The product code LKX represents a category of devices intended to apply controlled cooling and conductive heating to hemorrhoids. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are:
• Uses an aluminum probe that contains a temperature sensitive element to regulate temperature within 2 degrees (between 37 and 46 degrees centigrade).
○ IFU/IU: The apparatus is intended to apply controlled, conductive heating to hemorrhoids.
• Uses a heat applicator inserted into the rectum, applicator contains a battery operated heater, and a sensor which provides temperature control/feedback.
○ IFU/IU: Intended to provide temporary relief of the symptoms of hemorrhoids through the application of mild heating.
• Uses speculum-like plastic container containing liquid to cool hemorrhoidal veins.
○ IFU/IU: Treatment of external hemorrhoids by applying cold therapy (cryotherapy) directly to swollen hemorrhoidal veins.
The committee, during session III, will discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LRL” and the associated device classification name, “Cushion, Hemorrhoid.” The product code LRL represents a category of devices intended to temporarily relieve pain and pressure caused by hemorrhoids. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are:
• Uses an injection molded polypropylene copolymer plastic seat attached to a toilet seat (the product is adjustable and is available in round and elongated versions).
○ IFU/IU: For the temporary relief from the pain and pressure of hemorrhoids. The device is for external use only.
• Uses a cushion with an inflatable vinyl exterior and a foam center. An air chamber, when filled, prevents the cushion from compressing the foam. A urethane foam center adds comfort.
○ IFU/IU: Intended for the home convalescent patient with perineal discomfort.
• Uses a cushion that contains two internal molded structures that conform to the patient's shape. Exerts “slight” pressure on hemorrhoid. IFU/IU not required at the time of clearance.
The committee, during session IV, will discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LKN” and the associated device classification name, “Separator, automated, blood cell and plasma, therapeutic.” The product code LKN represents a category of centrifuge-type devices intended to separate blood components and perform therapeutic plasma exchange for the management of serious medical conditions in adults and children. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments
• Utilizes a continuous flow centrifuge (max speed 3000 revolutions per minute) to separate source blood from a subject into blood components.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to perform therapeutic plasma exchange.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to perform Red Blood Cell Exchange procedures for the transfusion management of Sickle Cell Disease in adults and children.
• Uses continuous flow access to a rotating centrifuge to separate blood components.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to harvest cellular components from the blood of certain patients where the attending physician feels the removal of such component may benefit the patient.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to remove plasma components and/or fluid selected by the attending physicians.
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
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).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; extension of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period provided in the notice entitled “Over-the-Counter Sunscreens: Safety and Effectiveness Data; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability” that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period for the draft guidance by an additional 30 days. Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to permit the Agency to consider your comments before issuing the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 22, 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.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft 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
Kristen Hardin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5443, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4246.
In the
The Agency has received a request for a 30-day extension of the comment period to provide more time for regulated industry to prepare a detailed and meaningful response to the draft guidance. FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for 30 days, until February 22, 2016. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension will allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without compromising timely publication of the final guidance as mandated by the SIA.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is accepting comments on the
Comments must be received by April 7, 2016.
Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2013-0006 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Jessica Specht, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-212-2288.
You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified in the
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121
The proposed guidance does not have the force or effect of law.
FEMA seeks comment on the proposed guidance, which is available online at
Pub. L. 113-2.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0035, abstracted below, that we will submit to the OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection requires General Aviation (GA) aircraft operators who wish to fly into and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) to designate a security coordinator and adopt a DCA Access Standard Security Program (DASSP).
Send your comments by March 8, 2016.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA requires GA aircraft operators who wish to fly into and out of DCA to designate a security coordinator and adopt the DASSP. Once aircraft operators have adopted the DASSP, the operators must request a tentative slot reservation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and request authorization from TSA to fly into or out of DCA. This information is collected under OMB control number 1652-0033 TSA Airspace Waiver Program. If TSA approves the flight, TSA will transmit that information to FAA.
The DASSP application collects basic information about the applicant, the aircraft operator, and the security coordinator that the operator wishes to designate, as well as the identifier of the airport used as a base of operation and whether the operator presently complies with a TSA Standard Security Program.
TSA also requires individuals designated as security coordinators and flight crewmembers assigned to duty on a GA aircraft into and out of DCA to submit fingerprints for a Criminal History Records Check (CHRC). In addition, GA aircraft operator must also maintain CHRC records of all employees and authorized representative for which a CHRC has been completed. These records must be made available to TSA upon request.
TSA estimates a total of 4,887 respondents annually. The total number of annual burden hours is estimated to be 5,547 hours per year.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0043, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by February 8, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-day Notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0033, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by February 8, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; final comprehensive conservation plan and record of decision.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and record of decision (ROD) for Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Wallops Island NWR. We prepared this ROD pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The Service is furnishing this notice to advise the public and other agencies of our decision and of the availability of the ROD.
The ROD was signed on November 6, 2015.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and ROD by any of the following methods.
Thomas Bonetti, Natural Resource Planner, 413-253-8307 (phone);
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Chincoteague NWR and Wallops Island NWR. We began this process through a notice of intent in the
In the draft and final CCP/EIS, we evaluated three alternatives for managing the refuge and completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic considerations of each alternative. Based on comments received on the draft CCP/EIS, we made minor modifications to alternative B, the Service's preferred alternative in the final CCP/EIS. During the public review period for the final CCP/EIS, we did not receive any comments that raised significant new issues, resulted in changes to our analysis, or warranted any further changes to alternative B.
In accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice announces our decision to select alternative B for implementation and the availability of the ROD and final CCP for Chincoteague NWR and Wallops Island NWR. The final CCP will guide our management and administration of the refuges over the next 15 years.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each NWR. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). CCPs should be consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies, as well as respond to key issues and public concerns. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years, in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
During the scoping phase of the planning process, we identified issues and concerns based on input from the public, State or Federal agencies, other Service programs, and our planning team. We developed refuge management alternatives to address issues; help achieve refuge goals, objectives, and purposes; and support the Refuge System mission. Our draft CCP/EIS (79 FR 27906) and final CCP/EIS (80 FR 54799) fully analyze three alternatives for the future management of the refuge: (1) Alternative A, Current Management; (2) Alternative B, Balanced Approach; and (3) Alternative C, Reduced Disturbance. Alternative A satisfies the NEPA requirement of a “No Action” alternative. Both the draft and final plans identify alternative B as the Service-preferred alternative. Please refer to the final CCP/EIS for more details on each of the alternatives.
Our decision is to adopt alternative B, as described in the final CCP. We provide a brief summary of our decision below. For the full basis of our decision, please see the ROD (see
The decision to adopt alternative B for implementation was made after considering the follow factors: (1) The impacts identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the draft and final CCP/EIS; (2) The results of public and agency comments; (3) How well the alternative achieves the stated purpose and need for a CCP and the seven goals presented in the final CCP/EIS chapter 1; (4) How well the alternative addresses the relevant issues, concerns, and opportunities identified in the planning process; and (5) Other relevant factors, including fulfilling the purposes for which the refuge was established, contributing to the mission and goals of the Refuge System, and statutory and regulatory guidance.
Compared to the other two alternatives, alternative B includes the
In summary, we selected alternative B for implementation because it best meets the factors identified above when compared to alternatives A and C. Alternative B provides the greatest number of opportunities for Chincoteague NWR and Wallops Island NWR to contribute to the conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitat in the Region, will increase the capacity of the refuges to meet their purposes and contribute to the Refuge System mission, and will provide the means to better respond to changing ecological conditions within the surrounding environment.
You can view or obtain the final CCP and ROD as indicated under
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Notice of Reservation Proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 321.34 acres, more or less, as the initial reservation of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on December 30, 2015.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, MS-4642-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467) for the lands described below. The land was proclaimed to be the Mashpee Wampanoag Reservation of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. The approximate acreages described below are those identified in Attachment I of the Record of Decision signed by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs on September 18, 2015.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the east side of Quippish Road, and the south side of Sampsons Mill Road more particularly shown as Lot 6 on a plan entitled “Plan of Land in Mashpee, Mass. Jill Slaymaker in Mashpee, Ma. Scale 1″ = 100′, Date March 22, 1985” prepared by Edward E. Kelley Reg. Land Surveyor and recorded in Barnstable County Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 401 Page 97. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete bound at the intersection of Quippish Road and Linwood Street and the southwesterly corner of the parcel herein described;
Thence N 01°28′19″ W along the easterly sideline of Quippish Road a distance of 258.98 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 14°02′10″ W along the easterly sideline of Quippish Road on a distance of 209.57 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 20°57′57″ W along the easterly sideline of Quippish Road a distance of 266.53 feet to a point near a concrete bound disturbed at the land now or formerly of Willowbend Community Trust;
Thence N 68°19′49″ E along land now or formerly of Willowbend Community Trust a distance of 335.86 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 18°23′09″ W along land now or formerly of Willowbend Community Trust a distance of 391.81 feet to a concrete bound at the easterly sideline of Quippish Road;
Thence N 18°23′09″ W along the easterly sideline of Quippish Road a distance of 355.84 feet to a mag nail set at the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road;
Thence S 70°51′50″ E along the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road a distance of 528.32 feet to a concrete bound at the point of curvature;
Thence easterly along the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road a curve to the left having a radius of 191.36 feet, an arc distance of 132.25 feet, a chord bearing N 89°20′15″ E and a chord length of 129.63 feet to point of tangency;
Thence N 69°32′13″ E along the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road a distance of 195.68 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence easterly along the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road a curve to the right having a radius of 171.59 feet, an arc distance of 120.46 feet, a chord bearing N 89°38′54″ E and a chord length of 118.00 feet to point of tangency;
Thence S 70°14′27″ E along the southerly sideline of Sampsons Mill Road a distance of 114.00 feet to the medial line of the Santuit River;
Thence numerous courses along the medial line of Santuit River;
Thence S 26°12′29″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 21.27 feet to a point;
Thence S 06°37′27″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 98.31 feet to a point;
Thence S 49°39′30″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 40.85 feet to a point;
Thence S 38°48′36″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 43.45 feet to point;
Thence S 30°48′45″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 27.64 feet to a point;
Thence S 53°29′40″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 31.73 feet to a point;
Thence S 29°39′25″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 73.97 feet to a point;
Thence S 05°07′08″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 81.61 feet to a point;
Thence S 19°19′45″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 55.78 feet to a point;
Thence S 14°31′54″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 146.35 feet to a point;
Thence S 27°27′03″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 94.14 feet to a point;
Thence S 51°23′03″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 56.47 feet to a point;
Thence S 08°58′54″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 48.95 feet to a point;
Thence S 01°59′19″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 49.82 feet to a point;
Thence S 20°26′08″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 34.79 feet to a point;
Thence S 07°02′20″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 34.79 feet to a point;
Thence S 11°59′37″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 65.43 feet to a point;
Thence S 56°08′09″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 88.60 feet to a point;
Thence S 13°17′42″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 102.68 feet to a point;
Thence S 49°39′30″ W along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 18.15 feet to a point;
Thence S 02°26′46″
Thence S 30°57′53″ E along the medial line of the Santuit River a distance of 33.53 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission;
Thence S 75°43′36″ W along land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 314.40 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 75°43′36″ W along land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission and along an undeveloped way know as Linwood Street, all being land of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission, a distance of 300.03 feet to a concrete bound at the sideline of Linwood Street;
Thence S 75°43′36″ W along the northerly sideline of Linwood Street a distance of 417.21 feet to a concrete bound at the easterly sideline of Quippish Road, being the Point of Beginning.
The above parcel contains 29.92 +/− acres.
For Grantor's title see deed dated February 7, 2013 from Maushop L.L.C. and recorded in the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Book 27116, Page 35.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee, on the east side of Mizzenmast more particularly shown as shown as Lot 80 Land Court Plan 35464-b (Sheet 7) filed in Land Registration Office, Barnstable County Registry of Deeds with a Certificate of Title Number 165381 bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete bound at the southwesterly corner of the parcel herein described and the land now or formerly of new Seabury Properties, LLC;
Thence N 09°08′29″ E along land now or formerly of new Seabury Properties, LLC a distance of 57.00 feet to a bound at the land now or formerly of Paul;
Thence N 59°24′39″ E along land now or formerly of Paul a distance of 188.63 feet to a concrete bound at the easterly sideline of Mizzenmast;
Thence southerly along the easterly sideline of Mizzenmast a curve to the right, having a radius of 547.59 feet, an arc distance of 118.00 feet, with a chord bearing S 8°45′36″ E and a chord length of 117.77 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Garber;
Thence S 79°16′28″ W along land now or formerly of Garber a distance of 192.74 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 15,727 +/− s.f. or 0.3610 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee, on the south side of Uncle Percy's Road more particularly shown as Lot 15 (Block 10) Land Court Plan 11408-I filed in Land Registration Office, Barnstable County Registry of Deeds with a Certificate of Title Number 157612. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete bound along the southerly sideline of Uncle Percy's Road at the westerly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of Tucchio;
Thence N 45°15′00″ E along the southerly sideline of Uncle Percy's Road a distance 65.00 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Mainberger, Trustee;
Thence S 44°45′00″ E along land now or formerly of Mainberger, Trustee a distance of 100.00 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Romanski;
Thence S 45°15′00″ W along land now or formerly of Romanski and Brossi a distance of 65.00 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Tucchio;
Thence N 44°45′00″ W along land now or formerly of Tucchio a distance of 100.00 feet to the southerly sideline of Uncle Percy's Road and the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 6,500 s.f. or 0.1492 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the west side of Great Neck Road South more particularly shown on a plan entitled “Plan of Land in Mashpee, Mass. Prepared for Duck Pond Limited Partnership. Scale 1″ = 50′, dated February 13, 2007” prepared by Holmes and McGrath, Inc. and recorded in Barnstable County Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 618 Page 13. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete bound at the northeasterly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc.;
Thence S 70°00′00″ E along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. A distance of 180.00 feet to a point;
Thence S 24°54′00″ E along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. A distance of 93.07 feet to a point;
Thence S 01°00′00″ W along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. A distance of 75.00 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 13°55′00″ W along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. A distance of 190.01 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 282.36 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 500.11 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 244.03 feet to a point near a concrete bound at land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc.;
Thence N 14°32′19″ E along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc.; a distance of 395.00 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 84°57′43″ E along the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 765.00 feet to a concrete bound being the Point of Beginning.
The above parcel contains 8.88 +/− acres
For Grantor's title see deed dated June 12, 2007 from Duck Pond Limited Partnership and recorded in the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Book 22104, Page 110.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the west side of Great Neck Road South more particularly shown on a plan entitled “Plan of Land in Mashpee, Mass. Prepared for the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. Scale 1″ = 100′, dated June 6/3/15” prepared by Cape & Islands Engineering, Inc. To be recorded in Barnstable County Registry of Deeds; bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a Mashpee road bound along the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South;
Thence S 19°26′15″ W along the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South a distance of 220.76 feet to a point of curvature near a disturbed concrete bound;
Thence southerly along the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South a curve to the left having a radius of 4055.79 feet, an arc distance of 249.01 feet, a chord bearing S 17°40′43″ W and a chord length of 248.97 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along land now or formerly Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 265.00 feet to a point at land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council;
Thence N 13°55′00″ E along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 190.01 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 01°00′00″ E along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 75.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 24°54′00″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 93.07 feet to a point;
Thence N 70°00′00″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 180.00 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 84°57′43″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 765.00 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 14°32′19″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. a distance of 395.00 feet to a point near a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Mashpee Commons LP;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 256.07 feet to a broken concrete bound;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 499.97 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 84°57′25″ W along land now or formerly of the Mashpee Commons LP a distance of 500.00 feet to a concrete bound at the northerly sideline of Holland Mill Road;
Thence N 6°32′16″ E along Holland Mill Road so called a distance of 8.04 feet to a point;
Thence N 58°32′13″ W along the northerly sideline of Holland Mill Road a distance of 342.16 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 75°30′32″ W along the northerly sideline of Holland Mill Road a distance of 95.19 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 83°41′49″ W along the northerly sideline of Holland Mill Road a distance of 90.76 feet to a concrete bound online and thence continuing 12.90 feet to a point at the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road;
Thence N 10°25′26″ E along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 96.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 12°38′07″ E along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 149.30 feet to a point;
Thence N 10°23′37″ E along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 98.12 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence northerly along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a curve to the left having a radius of 412.75 feet, an arc distance of 98.07 feet, a chord bearing N 3°53′22″ E and a chord length of 97.84 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence N 2°55′03″ W along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 125.15 feet to a point;
Thence N 0°35′42″ E along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 49.42 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence northerly along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a curve to the left having a radius of 404.20 feet, an arc distance of 208.01 feet, a chord bearing N 14°08′53″ W and a chord length of 205.72 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence N 28°53′28″ W along the easterly sideline of Great Hay Road a distance of 49.10 feet to a point at the land now or formerly (n/f) of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 10.11 feet to a broken concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 1216.01 feet to a broken concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 352.06 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 125.83 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 484.05 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 405.76 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land n/f of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 500.19 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence S 82°18′33″ E along land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission a distance of 159.99 feet to a point near a concrete bound at the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South;
Thence S 04°15′00″ E along the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South a distance of 43.97 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence southerly along the westerly sideline of Great Neck Road South a curve to the right having a radius of 914.51 feet, an arc distance of 378.08 feet, a chord bearing S 7°35′38″ W and a chord length of 375.39 feet to a Mashpee Road bound being the Point of Beginning
The above parcel contains 57.94 +/− acres
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the south side of Main Street more particularly shown as shown as parcel 35 30 0 on the Town of Mashpee Assessors Maps, and is shown as parcel labeled Town of Mashpee on a plan entitled “Plan of Land in Mashpee, Mass. As surveyed for Bonnie MacCarthy, Scale 1 in. = 40 ft., May 11, 1973, Nickerson & Berger, Inc. Engineers,” recorded with the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds at Plan Book 273, Page 2. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning on the southerly sideline of Main Street at a concrete bound at the northwesterly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
Thence S 74°26′15″ E by said Main Street a distance of 230.95 feet to a point on the westerly bank of the Mashpee River;
Thence S 11°57′41″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 20.35 feet to a point;
Thence S 11°35′07″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 18.16 feet to a point;
Thence N 79°14′07″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 3.28 feet to a point;
Thence S 06°00′37″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 34.71 feet to a point;
Thence S 04°19′12″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 39.78 feet to a point;
Thence S 56°36′27″ W along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 3.97 feet to a point;
Thence S 16°22′26″ E along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 19.51 feet to a point;
Thence S 01°45′28″ E along the westerly bank of the Mashpee River a distance of 10.40 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
Thence N 65°57′45″ W along land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a distance of 40.08 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 65°57′45″ W along land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a distance of 234.92 feet to a concrete bound;
Thence N 25°22′55″ E along land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a distance of 102.38 feet to the southerly sideline of Main Street and the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 29,708 +/− s.f. or 0.6820 +/− acres.
That certain parcel of land together with the buildings thereon located on the southerly side of Hollow Road in Mashpee, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, now known and numbered as 41 Hollow Road, described as follows:
Beginning at a Point (P.O.B. “A”) at the southerly side of Hollow Road and the easterly side of Goodspeed's Meeting House Road. Said Point (P.O.B. “A”) lies N 54°53′10″ E a distance of 39.89 feet from a concrete bound with a drill hole found, thence:
By the southerly line of Hollow Road S 54°11′06″ E a distance of 160.52 feet to a point, thence;
By the southerly line of Hollow Road S 58°08′17″ E a distance of 267.94 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set at land of Mashpee Water District, thence;
By land of Mashpee Water District along a non-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 400.00 feet, an arc length of 1758.49 feet, and whose long chord bears S 78°30′33″ E a distance of 647.68 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set in the southerly line of Hollow Road, thence;
By the southerly line of Hollow Road along a curve to the right, having a radius of 230.06 feet, an arc length of 207.20 feet, and whose long chord bears S 67°36′33″ E a distance of 200.27 feet to a point, thence;
By the southerly line of Hollow Road S 41°48′27″ E a distance of 14.34 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set at land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission, thence;
By land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission S 18°18′01″ W a distance of 665.60 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set at land of Mashpee Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc., thence;
By land of Mashpee Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc. S 72°07′25″ W a distance of 411.20 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc. N 73°07′23″ W a distance of 301.99 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc. N 18°56′33″ W a distance of 614.52 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc. N 68°19′57″ W a distance of 287.36 feet to a point in the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road, thence;
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 17°54′20″ E a distance of 217.36 feet to a point, thence;
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 24°06′17″ E a distance of 249.44 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 73A contains 10.81 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the east side of Meetinghouse Road more particularly shown as Parcel 58A on a plan entitled “Plan of Land Prepared for Old Indian Meeting House Authority, Inc. Scale 1″ = 10′, date March 29, 2007” prepared by Holmes and McGrath Inc. and recorded in Barnstable County Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 625 page 8. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete bound with nail located along the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road at the northeasterly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc.;
Thence S 5°22′15″ W along the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road a distance of 10.17 feet to a concrete bound with disk located on the easterly sideline of Meeting House Road;
Thence easterly along the sideline of Meetinghouse Road on a curve to the left having a radius of 996.84 feet, an arc distance of 59.85 feet, a chord bearing S 3°39′02″ W and a chord length of 59.84 feet to a point located at the southwest corner of the parcel herein described;
Thence S 73°12′45″ E along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. A distance of 86.92 feet to a point;
Thence N 13°42′06″ E along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. A distance of 70.00 feet to a point marked by a concrete bound with a nail;
Thence N 74°10′05″ W along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. A distance of 98.78 feet to a point marked by a concrete bound with a nail at the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road, being the Point of Beginning;
The above parcel contains 6,447 +/− s.f. or 0.1480 +/− acres.
For grantor's title see deed dated April 28, 2008 from the Town of Mashpee, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen, and recorded in the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Book 22867, Page 31.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee on the west side of Falmouth Road, and the east side of Meetinghouse Road more particularly shown as Parcel 13B on a plan entitled “Plan of Land Prepared For Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe in Mashpee, MA. Scale 1″ = 80′, date May 16, 2008” prepared by Holmes and McGrath Inc. and recorded in Barnstable County Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 626 Page 4. Bounded and described as follows:
Beginning near a concrete bound along the westerly sideline of Falmouth Road at the southeasterly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee;
Thence N 64°23′33″ W along land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee a distance of 375.00 feet to a concrete bound on the easterly sideline of Meeting House Road;
Thence easterly along the sideline of Meetinghouse Road on a curve to the right having a radius of 996.84 feet, an arc distance of 158.50 feet, a chord bearing N 2°37′29″ W and a chord length of 158.33 feet to a point;
Thence S 73°12′45″ E along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. A distance of 86.92 feet to a point;
Thence N 13°42′06″ E along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. A distance of 70.00 feet to a point marked by a concrete bound with a nail;
Thence N 74°10′05″ W along land now or formerly of Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council Inc. a distance of 98.78 feet to a point marked by a concrete bound with a nail at the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road,
Thence N 05°22′15″ E along the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road a distance of 186.63 feet to the a point of curvature;
Thence along the easterly sideline of Meetinghouse Road a curve to the left having a radius of 1050.00 feet, an arc distance of 233.86 feet, a chord bearing N 1°00′35″ W and a chord length of 233.38 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of the Town of Mashpee;
Thence N 73°02′52″ E along land of now or formerly Town of Mashpee a distance of 720.70 feet to a point marked by a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Nancy D. Ellison and at the land of now or formerly of Scott Greenwood;
Thence S 11°40′13″ E along lands of now or formerly of Greenwood, of Ainsworth and of Draggoo a distance of 381.13 feet to a rod with cap at the centerline of the way and at the land now or formerly Michael G. Miller;
Thence S 60°17′07″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance 44.94 feet to a rod with cap;
Thence S 50°37′58″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance of 44.45 feet to a rod with cap;
Thence S 43°49′11″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance of 56.00 feet to a rod with cap;
Thence S 41°13′45″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance of 44.85 feet to a rod with cap;
Thence S 38°24′16″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance of 56.58 feet to a rod with cap;
Thence S 23°27′46″ W along land now or formerly of Miller a distance of 113.79 feet to a rod with cap at the westerly sideline of Falmouth Road;
Thence westerly along the sideline of Falmouth Road a curve to the left, radius of 2030.00 feet, an arc distance of 329.65 feet, a chord bearing S 31°18′19″ W and a chord length of 329.29 feet to a concrete bound at a point of tangency;
Thence S 26°39′12″ W along the westerly sideline of Falmouth Road a distance of 102.33 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above parcel contains 501,486 +/− s.f. or 11.5125 +/− acres.
For Grantor's title see deed dated May 19, 2008 from the Town of Mashpee, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen, and recorded in the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Book 23010, Page 37.
Description of the land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Barnstable, Town of Mashpee, on the northerly side of Main Street more particularly shown as parcel 27 42 0 on the Town of Mashpee Assessors Maps, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a broken concrete bound on the northerly sideline of Main Street at the southwesterly corner of the parcel herein described and at the land now or formerly of Mauro;
Thence N 20°15′55″ E along land now or formerly of Mauro & Aselbekian a distance of 150.00 feet to a rod with a cap at the land now or formerly of Mashpee Shores Realty Trust;
Thence N 20°15′55″ E along land now or formerly of Mashpee Shores Realty Trust a distance of 207.89 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Wolf;
Thence N 20°15′55″ E along land now or formerly of Wolf a distance of 70.00 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Bortolotti;
Thence S 76°03′10″ E along land now or formerly of Bortolotti a distance of 264.65 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of Peters;
Thence S 29°16′14″ W along land of now or formerly of Peters a distance of 477.51 feet to a concrete bound at the northerly sideline of Main Street;
Thence westerly along the northerly sideline of Main Street, on a curve to the right having a radius of 594.62 feet, an arc distance of 189.67 feet with a chord bearing N 65°17′58″ W and a chord length of 188.87 feet, to a broken concrete bound being the Point of Beginning.
Above described parcel contains 102,177 s.f. or 2.3456 +/− acres.
For Grantor's title see deed dated April 28, 2008 from the Town of Mashpee, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen, and recorded in the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Book 22867, Page 26.
That certain parcel of land together with the buildings thereon located on the easterly side of Meetinghouse Road in Mashpee, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, now known and numbered as #184 Meetinghouse Road, described as follows:
Beginning at a point (P.O.B. “B”) at the easterly side of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road and the easterly side of Meetinghouse Road. Said point (P.O.B. “B”) lies S 06°34′23″ E a distance of 64.36 feet from a concrete bound with a drill hole found, thence:
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 7°50′42″ E a distance of 157.70 feet to a point, thence;
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 22°53′12″ E a distance of 196.84 feet to a point, thence;
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 29°49′31″ E a distance of 257.97 feet to a point, thence;
By the easterly line of Goodspeed's Meetinghouse Road N 17°54′20″ E a distance of 11.49 feet to a point at land of Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc., thence;
By land of Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. S 68°19′57″ E a distance of 287.36 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. S 18°56′33″ E a distance of 614.52 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. S 73°07′23″ E a distance of 301.99 feet to a point, thence;
By land of Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. N 72°07′25″ E a distance of 411.20 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set at land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission, thence;
By land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission N 53°00′36″ E a distance of 567.12 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set in the westerly line of Noisy Hole Road, thence;
By westerly line of Noisy Hole Road along a non-tangent curve to the RIGHT, having a radius of 1095.10 feet, an arc length of 145.55 feet, and whose long chord bears S 30°06′07″ E a distance of 145.44 feet to a point, thence;
By westerly line of Noisy Hole Road along a curve to the LEFT, having a radius of 2636.04 feet, an arc length of 435.63 feet, and whose long chord bears S 31°01′44″ E a distance of 435.13 feet to a point, thence;
By westerly line of Noisy Hole Road along a curve to the RIGHT, having a radius of 2823.63 feet, an arc length of 197.19 feet, and whose long chord bears S 33°45′45″ E a distance of 197.15 feet to a point, thence;
By westerly line of Noisy Hole Road S 31°45′43″ E a distance of 145.38 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set at land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission, thence;
By land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission S 69°37′19″ W a distance of 2045.48 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set, thence;
By land of Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission N 55°19′03″ W a distance of 34.35 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole set in the easterly line of Meetinghouse Road, thence;
By the easterly line of Meetinghouse Road along a non-tangent curve to the LEFT, having a radius of 1075.46 feet, an arc length of 342.37 feet, and whose long chord bears N 10°09′22″ W a distance of 340.93 feet to a concrete bound with a drill hole found, thence;
By the easterly line of Meetinghouse Road N 19°16′34″ W a distance of 930.78 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Parcel 75 contains 46.83 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the west side of O'Connell Way off of Stevens Street owned by the Taunton Development Corporation and shown as Assessor's Parcel 49 on Assessor's Map 118 and as Lot 9 on a plan by Field Engineering Co., Inc. entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II” and revised dated 3/08/2006, recorded in Plan Book 446, Pages 34-36, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning on the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way, at the most southeasterly corner of the lot to be described; said point being N 13°10′38″ W and 321.23 feet from a point of tangency in the westerly side line of O'Connell Way;
THENCE S 76°49′22″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 225.11 feet to a point;
THENCE N 20°56′02″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 547.76 feet to a point at Lot 14 and land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (TDC);
THENCE N 87°34′23” E along land now or formerly of TDC a distance of 186.89 feet to a point on a curve on the westerly side line of O'Connell Way;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 230.00 feet, an arc distance of 92.90 feet, a chord bearing S 30°45′02” E and a chord length of 92.27 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 42°19′18″ E along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 135.62 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 170.00 feet, an arc distance of 86.47 feet, a chord bearing S 27°44′58″ E and a chord length of 85.54 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 13°10′38″ E along the westerly side line of O'Connell Way a distance of 218.68 feet to the Point of Beginning;
The above described lot contains 2.726 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the west side of O'Connell Way off of Stevens Street owned by the Taunton Development Corporation and shown as Assessor's Parcel 27 on Assessor's Map 108 and as Lot 13 on a plan by Field Engineering Co., Inc. entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II” and revised dated 3/08/2006, recorded in Plan Book 458, Page 21, bounded and described as follows. (For the purposes of these drawings, the portion of the property boundary defined by the centerline of the Cotley River has been approximated by line segments with bearings and distances).
Beginning on the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way, at the southerly corner of the lot to be described and point being the easterly corner of Lot 14 owned by Taunton Development Corporation (TDC);
THENCE N 69°59′17″ W along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 14) a distance of 749.99 feet to a point;
THENCE S 19°57′56″ W along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 14) a distance of 301.44 feet to a point and at land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC;
THENCE N 69°49′06″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 200.62 feet to a point also being the end point of a tie line;
THENCE continuing in the same N 69°49′06″ W direction along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 30.00 feet to the approximate centerline of the Cotley River;
THENCE S 10°39′46″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 110.86 feet;
THENCE S 05°31′51″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 43.77 feet;
THENCE S 54°00′16″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 31.07 feet;
THENCE S 58°48′35″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 35.99 feet;
THENCE S 22°35′20″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 27.33 feet;
THENCE S 15°02′05″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 115.27 feet;
THENCE S 07°35′17″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 30.90 feet;
THENCE S 36°31′36″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 36.78 feet;
THENCE S 22°05′23″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 37.53 feet;
THENCE S 00°51′38″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 102.63 feet;
THENCE S 10°19′41″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 132.84 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Douglas Porter Trustee;
THENCE S 79°40′32″ W along land now or formerly of Douglas Porter Trustee a distance of 21.00 feet to a point also being the end point of a tie line;
THENCE continuing in the same S 79°40′32″ W direction along land now or formerly of Douglas Porter Trustee a distance of 190.04 feet to a point on the easterly sideline of Massachusetts State Highway Route 24, Layout #3719;
THENCE N 01°00′57″ E along said easterly sideline of Route 24 a distance of 438.59 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE N 45°35′25″ W along said easterly sideline of Route 24 a distance of 463.25 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE N 11°44′56″ E along said easterly sideline of Route 24 a distance of 862.24 feet to the southerly sideline of a railroad right of way owned now or formerly by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
THENCE N 59°53′38″ E along the southerly sideline of the railroad right of way a distance of 239.15 feet to a point;
THENCE S 68°51′04″ E along land now or formerly of James L. Read, Trustee a distance of 235.00 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC;
THENCE S 24°15′25″ E along land now or formerly of PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 500.20 feet to a point;
THENCE S 62°44′24″ E along land now or formerly of PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 203.55 feet to a point;
THENCE N 78°08′37″ E along land now or formerly of PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 227.00 feet to a point;
THENCE S 14°16′09″ E along land now or formerly of PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 77.84 feet to a point on the cul-de-sac sideline of O'Connell Way;
THENCE westerly and southerly along the sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius 75.00 feet, an arc distance of 190.17 feet, a chord bearing S 21°30′01″ E and a chord length of 143.17 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
THENCE easterly and southerly along the sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 40.00 feet, an arc distance of 49.33 feet, a chord bearing S 58°48′43″ E and a chord length of 46.26 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet, an arc distance of 93.55 feet, a chord bearing S 31°36′18″ E and a chord length of 93.23 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 39°43′33″ E along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 100.06 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 270.00 feet, an arc distance of 125.40 feet, a chord bearing S 26°25′15″ E and a chord length of 124.27 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 22.238 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the west side of O'Connell Way off of Stevens Street owned by the Taunton Development Corporation and shown as Assessor's Parcel 26 on Assessor's Map 108 and as Lot 14 on a plan by Field Engineering Co., Inc. entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II” and revised dated 3/08/2006, recorded in Plan Book 446, Pages 34-36, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning on the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way, at the most southeasterly corner of the lot to be described and point being the northeasterly corner of Lot 9 owned by Taunton Development Corporation (TDC);
THENCE S 87°34′23″ W along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 9), a distance of 186.89 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC;
THENCE N 70°07′42″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 636.23 feet to a point;
THENCE N 69 °49′06″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 46.27 feet to a point at land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13);
THENCE N 19 °57′56″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13) a distance of 301.44 feet to a point;
THENCE S 69°59′17″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13) a distance of 749.99 feet to a point on the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 270.00 feet, an arc distance of 59.38 feet, a chord bearing S 06°48′53″ E and a chord length of 59.27 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 00°30′50″ E along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 118.63 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 230.00 feet, an arc distance of 74.93 feet, a chord bearing S 09°50′48″ E and a chord length of 74.60 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 5.473 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the south side of Middleboro Avenue and west side of Stevens Street owned by the Taunton Development Corporation and shown as Assessor's Parcel 156 on Assessor's Map 94 and as shown on a plan by Tibbetts Engineering Corp. entitled “Plan of Land”, Prepared for Taunton Development Corporation (TDC) dated 4/25/2002, recorded in Plan Book 406, Pages 66-68, bounded and described as follows. (For the purposes of these drawings, the portion of the property boundary defined by the centerline of the Cotley River or the westerly edge of Barstow's Pond has been approximated by line segments with bearings and distances).
Beginning on the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue at the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Tracey and Troy Hixon;
THENCE S 01°02′56″ W along land now or formerly of Hixon a distance of 166.30 feet to an angle point;
THENCE S 04°39′04″ E along land now or formerly of Hixon a distance of 98.65 feet to a point;
THENCE S 76°07′35″ E along land now or formerly of Hixon a distance of 106.06 feet to a point;
THENCE S 73°49′19″ E along land now or formerly of Ray A. Nacaula and Donnelly a distance of 241.70 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Waterman;
THENCE S 18°49′20″ W along land now or formerly of Waterman a distance of 151.72 feet to an iron pipe;
THENCE N 85°34′00″ E along land now or formerly of Waterman a distance of 74.85 feet to an iron pipe at land now or formerly of Mora and Bell;
THENCE S 09°35′20″ E along land now or formerly of Mora and Bell and land formerly of Oldfield but now of TDC a distance of 279.18 feet to a stone bound;
THENCE N 85°33′36″ E along land formerly of Oldfield but now of TDC a distance of 304.45 feet to a point on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE S 09°01′27″ E along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 35.74 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 59°54′40″ W along the land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a distance of 16.08 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 04°25′09″ E along the land now or formerly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a distance of 11.29 feet to a point along the northerly sideline of railroad right of way;
THENCE S 59°53′38″ W along the northerly sideline of the railroad right of way a distance of 884.09 feet to an angle point;
THENCE S 54°50′33″ W along the northerly sideline of the railroad right of way a distance of 187.40 feet to an angle point;
THENCE S 59°53′38″ W along the northerly sideline of the railroad right of way a distance of 1299.46 feet to a point also being the end point of a tie line;
THENCE continuing in the same direction S 59°53′38″ W along the northerly sideline of the railroad right of way a distance of 30.01 feet to the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel;
THENCE N 03°10′26″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 47.17 feet;
THENCE N 33°36′32″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 113.25 feet;
THENCE N 52°39′30″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 66.39 feet;
THENCE N 09°47′41″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 173.55 feet;
THENCE N 18°32′41″ W along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 70.11 feet;
THENCE N 25°28′18″ W along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 105.43 feet;
THENCE N 07°01′49″ W along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 127.91 feet;
THENCE N 33°55′21″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 103.89 feet;
THENCE N 07°23′01″ W along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 199.55 feet;
THENCE N 13°51′57″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 64.35 feet;
THENCE N 31°51′07″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 175.31 feet;
THENCE N 21°19′23″ E along the approximate centerline of the Cotley River channel a distance of 142.74 feet;
THENCE N 38°11′09″ E along the approximate centerline of the otley River channel a distance of 173.51 feet;
THENCE N 63°56′17″ W a distance of 96.16 feet to the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond;
THENCE N 51°45′07″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 156.13 feet;
THENCE N 65°12′52″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 162.77 feet;
THENCE N 82°19′48″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 106.19 feet;
THENCE N 35°36′23″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 22.65 feet;
THENCE N 08°39′34″ W by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 44.34 feet;
THENCE N 17°22′26″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 48.53 feet;
THENCE N 17°23′37″ W by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 75.14 feet;
THENCE N 03°05′14″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 41.87 feet;
THENCE N 76°36′55″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 45.99 feet;
THENCE S 37°12′19″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 46.41 feet;
THENCE S 10°11′37″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 55.96 feet;
THENCE S 15°09′39″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 35.95 feet;
THENCE S 05°46′00″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 44.65 feet;
THENCE S 81°38′17″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 27.39 feet;
THENCE N 54°43′56″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 128.51 feet;
THENCE N 01°46′23″ W by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 113.99 feet;
THENCE N 25°38′16″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 151.73 feet;
THENCE N 74°41′23″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 106.65 feet;
THENCE N 27°43′59″ E by the approximate westerly edge of Barstow's Pond a distance of 20.70 feet to a point near the dam;
THENCE N 32°19′00″ E a distance of 110.00 feet to an iron pipe being the end point of a tie line and also being a point on a curve on the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue;
THENCE easterly along the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue on a curve to the right having a radius of 1975.00 feet, an arc distance of 131.00 feet, a chord bearing S 68°43′59″ E and a chord length of 130.98 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 43°35′26″ E along the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue a distance of 17.94 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 55°00′28″ E along the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue a distance of 93.78 feet to at Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 64°48′14″ E along the southerly sideline of Middleboro Avenue a distance of 35.92 feet to the Point of Beginning;
The above described lot contains 45.222 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the west side of Stevens Street owned by Taunton Development Corporation and shown as Assessor's Parcel 36 on Assessor's Map 95, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a stake on the westerly side of Stevens Street at the most north easterly corner of the lot to be described; and point being the south easterly corner of land now or formerly of Mora and Bell;
THENCE S 07°47′36″ E along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 183.57 feet to a corner of land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (TDC);
THENCE S 85°33′36″ W along land now or formerly of TDC (Assessor Map 94 Lot 156) a distance of 304.45 feet to a stone bound;
THENCE N 09°35′20″ W along land now or formerly of TDC (Assessor Map 94 Lot 156) a distance of 184.00 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Mora and Bell;
THENCE N 85°33′36″ E along land now or formerly of Mora and Bell a distance of 310.25 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 1.293 +/− acres.
The above described parcel has taken into consideration the roadway taking by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Highways, for the relocation of Stevens Street, by taking dated September 8, 1993, recorded with Bristol County North District Registry of Deeds in Deed Book 5683, Page 12.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the west side of Stevens Street and the east side of O'Connell Way and more particularly shown as Lot 3A on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street, East Taunton, Massachusetts”, revised dated May 31, 2005 recorded in Plan Book 437, Page 30. Also a portion of said property is shown on a plan by Field Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II, Taunton Development Corporation”, revised dated March 8, 2006, recorded in Plan Book 446, Page 35 bounded and described as follows. Also see Tract 10 (Gap Parcel)
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street at the most easterly corner of lot to be described; and point being the northeast corner of property now or formerly of Allen;
THENCE N 68°39′51″ W along land now or formerly of Allen and land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street, LLC a distance of 313.86 feet to a point;
THENCE N 69°12′22″ W continuing along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street, LLC a distance of 225.17 feet to a point;
THENCE S 47°56′00″ W along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street, LLC a distance of 87.00 feet to a point;
THENCE S 44°58′21″ W continuing along land now or formerly of 71
THENCE N 13°10′38″ W a distance of 349.05 feet along land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corp. (Gap Parcel, see Tract 10) to a point;
THENCE N 42°19′18″ W a distance of 215.61 feet along land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corp. (Gap Parcel, see Tract 10) to a point at land now or formerly of Bellas, Trustee;
THENCE S 72°20′47″ E a distance of 491.45 feet along land now or formerly of Bellas, Trustee and land now or formerly of DeBrum to a point;
THENCE continuing S 72°20′47″ E along land now or formerly of DeBrum a distance of 20.32 feet to a point;
THENCE S 70°48′53″ E a distance of 141.08 feet along land now or formerly of DeBrum to an iron pipe;
THENCE S 63°11′08″ E along land now or formerly of DeBrum a distance of 211.40 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Haskins;
THENCE S 26°48′58″ W along land now or formerly of Haskins a distance of 134.62 feet to a point;
THENCE S 69°41′20″ E along land now or formerly of Haskins a distance of 167.82 feet to a point at the westerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE S 04°48′11″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning;
The above described parcel contains 3.895 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the west side of Stevens Street more particularly shown as Lot 2 on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street, County Street and Rte. 24 East Taunton, Massachusetts Prepared for Robert DiCroce”, dated March 23, 2005, recorded in Plan Book 436, Page 22, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street at the southeast corner of property now or formerly of Williams;
THENCE S 19°18′52″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 186.64 feet to a point of curvature at the beginning of the road layout for O'Connell Way;
THENCE southwesterly along the northerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 75.00 feet, an arc distance of 130.78, feet a chord bearing S 69°16′13″ W and a chord length of 114.83 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 60°46′27″ W along the northerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 325.24 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 250.00 feet, an arc distance of 207.68 feet, a chord bearing N 36°58′32″ W and a chord length of 201.76 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 13°10′38″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 283.78 feet to a point at land now or formerly Taunton Development Corporation (TDC) (Gap Parcel, Tract 10);
THENCE S 41°25′18″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Gap Parcel, Tract 10) a distance of 28.35 feet to a point at land now or formerly DaRosa;
THENCE N 44°58′21″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa a distance of 155.46 feet to a point;
THENCE N 47°56′00″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa a distance of 87.00 feet to a point;
THENCE S 69°12′22″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa a distance of 225.17 feet to a point;
THENCE S 68°39′51″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa a distance of 192.94 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Allen;
THENCE S 14°26′52″ W along land now or formerly of Allen and land now or formerly of Williams a distance of 324.60 feet to a point;
THENCE S 65°33′57″ E along land now or formerly of Williams a distance of 150.00 feet to the Point of Beginning;
The above described parcel contains 6.875 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the west side of Stevens Street more particularly shown as Lot 2 on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street and O'Connell Way East Taunton, Massachusetts, prepared for One Stevens, LLC”, dated August 13, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 459, Page 72, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly sideline of Stevens Street and the southerly sideline of O'Connell Way and being the most northeasterly corner of the property herein described;
THENCE S 19°26′59″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 66.65 feet to a point;
THENCE S 29°25′10″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 134.03 feet to a point;
THENCE S 77°25′54″ W along Parcel E as shown on the above referenced plan a distance of 40.36 feet to a point;
THENCE S 46°27′27″ W along Parcel B-R as shown on the above referenced plan a distance of 53.00 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC;
THENCE N 73°40′17″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 73.36 feet to a point;
THENCE N 04°17′52″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 281.12 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along a curve to the left having a radius of 110.00 feet, an arc distance of 108.43 feet, a chord bearing N 32°32′10″ W and a chord length of 104.09 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 60°46′27″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 50.91 feet to a point;
THENCE S 85°42′06″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 60.47 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northerly along a curve to the right having a radius of 51.00 feet, an arc distance of 110.83 feet, a chord bearing N 32°02′26″ W and a chord length of 90.28 feet to a point of non-tangency;
THENCE S 60°46′27″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 112.61 feet to a point on the southerly sideline of O'Connell Way;
THENCE S 60°46′27″ E along the southerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 421.27 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 1.502 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the east side of O'Connell Way off Stevens Street, more particularly shown as Lot 11 on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Definitive Subdivision Modification Plan of Land Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II Taunton Development Corporation”, dated March 23, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 458, Page 21, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning at a point along a curve on the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way and said point being the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (Gap Parcel, Tract 10);
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 170.00 feet, an arc distance of 94.29 feet, a chord bearing N 16°24′14″ W and a
THENCE N 00°30′50″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 118.63 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet, an arc distance of 225.84 feet, a chord bearing N 20°07′12″ W and a chord length of 221.46 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 39°43′33″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 100.06 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 270.00 feet, an arc distance of 119.96 feet, a chord bearing N 26°59′51″ W and a chord length of 118.98 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 14°16′09″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way and land now or formerly PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 153.52 feet to a point;
THENCE N 28°14′17″ E along land now or formerly PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 220.00 feet to a point;
THENCE N 68°59′27″ E along land now or formerly PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 100.00 feet to a point;
THENCE N 89°40′32″ E along land now or formerly PR-Crossroads Commerce Center LLC a distance of 602.55 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Christ Community Church, Inc.;
THENCE S 13°44′43″ E along land now or formerly of Christ Community Church, Inc. a distance of 223.37 feet to a point;
THENCE S 08°06′20″ W along land now or formerly of Christ Community Church, Inc. a distance of 70.79 feet to a point;
THENCE S 01°38′59″ E along land now or formerly of Christ Community Church, Inc. and land now or formerly of Bellas, Trustee a distance of 214.50 feet to a point;
THENCE S 23°51′01″ W along land now or formerly of Bellas, Trustee a distance of 311.52 feet to a point;
THENCE S 67°36′01″ W along land now or formerly of Bellas, Trustee a distance of 486.60 feet to a point at land now or formerly of DaRosa and land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (Gap Parcel, Tract 10);
THENCE S 57°42′31″ W along land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (Gap Parcel, Tract 10) a distance of 16.65 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 14.021 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the west side of Stevens Street and the west side on O'Connell Way more particularly shown as Lot 1A-R on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street and O'Connell Way East Taunton, Massachusetts prepared for One Stevens LLC”, dated August 13, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 459, Page 72, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning on the southerly sideline of O'Connell Way at the land now or formerly of Jamins LLC;
THENCE N 60°46′27″ W along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 112.61 feet to a point at the beginning of a non-tangent curve;
THENCE southeasterly along land now or formerly Jamins LLC on a curve to the left having a radius of 51.00 feet, an arc distance of 110.83 feet, a chord bearing S 32°02′26″ E and a chord length of 90.28 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 85°42′06″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 60.47 feet to a point;
THENCE S 60°46′27″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 50.91 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC on a curve to the right having a radius of 110.00 feet, an arc distance of 108.43 feet, a chord bearing S 32°32′10″ E and a chord length of 104.09 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 04°17′52″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 281.12 feet to a point;
THENCE S 73°40′17″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 73.36 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee;
THENCE S 46°27′27″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 235.54 feet to a point;
THENCE N 88°13′45″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 139.98 feet to a point;
THENCE N 70°55′10″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 530.08 feet to a point;
THENCE N 30°37′46″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 236.68 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC;
THENCE N 15°19′02″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC a distance of 146.85 feet to a point;
THENCE N 85°42′06″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC a distance of 414.39 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northeasterly along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC on a curve to the left having a radius of 100.00 feet, an arc distance of 94.52 feet, a chord bearing N 58°37′25″ E and a chord length of 91.04 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 31°32′45″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC a distance of 59.36 feet to a point;
THENCE N 03°58′05″ W along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC a distance of 73.82 feet to a point;
THENCE N 54°21′17″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens, LLC a distance of 45.25 feet to a point on the curve of the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way;
THENCE southeasterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 310.00 feet, an arc distance of 214.85 feet, a chord bearing S 40°55′09″ E and a chord length of 210.58 feet to a point of tangency and at the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 9.146 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the west side of O'Connell Way off Stevens Street, more particularly shown as Lot 1B on plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street, County Street and Route 24 East Taunton, Massachusetts Prepared for the Maggiore Companies”, dated May 29, 2007, rev. June 13, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 458, Page 22, bounded and described as follows. (For the purposes of these drawings, the portion of the property boundary defined by the centerline of the Cotley River has been approximated by line segments with defined bearings and distances).
Beginning on the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way at the most easterly corner of land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation (TDC) (Lot 9);
THENCE S 13°10′38″ E along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 321.23 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southeasterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of
THENCE S 54°21′17″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 45.25 feet to a point;
THENCE S 03°58′05″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 73.82 feet to a point;
THENCE S 31°32′45″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 59.36 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southwesterly along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC on a curve to the right having a radius of 100.00 feet, an arc distance of 94.52 feet, a chord bearing S 58°37′25″ W and a chord length of 91.04 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 85°42′06″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 414.39 feet to a point;
THENCE S 15°19′02″ W along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 146.85 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee;
THENCE N 30°37′46″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 72.02 feet to a point;
THENCE N 60°57′07″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 554.83 feet to a point;
THENCE N 05°23′38″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 141.69 feet to a point;
THENCE N 75°19′32″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 66.89 feet to a point;
THENCE N 10°07′19″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 365.13 feet to a point;
THENCE S 79°40′32″ W along land now or formerly of Porter, Trustee a distance of 37.82 feet to the approximate centerline of the Cotley River and at land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13);
THENCE N 10°19′41″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 132.84 feet;
THENCE N 00°51′38″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 102.63 feet;
THENCE N 22°05′23″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 37.53 feet;
THENCE N 36°31′36″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 36.78 feet;
THENCE N 07°35′17″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 30.90 feet;
THENCE N 15°02′05″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 115.27 feet;
THENCE N 22°35′20″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 27.33 feet;
THENCE N 58°48′35″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 35.99 feet;
THENCE N 54°00′16″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 31.07 feet;
THENCE N 05°31′51″ W along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 43.77 feet;
THENCE N 10°39′46″ E along the approximate centerline of Cotley River a distance of 110.86 feet to a point;
THENCE S 69°49′06″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13) a distance of 30.00 feet to a point also being the end point of a tie line;
THENCE continuing S 69°49′06″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 13 & Lot 14) a distance of 246.89 feet to a point;
THENCE S 70°07′42″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 14) a distance of 636.23 feet to a point at the land of TDC (Lot 9);
THENCE S 20°56′02″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 9) a distance of 547.76 feet to a point;
THENCE N 76°49′22″ E along land now or formerly of TDC (Lot 9) a distance of 225.11 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 26.249 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on Stevens Street and Route 140, more particularly shown as Parcels A and B on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street, County Street and Rte. 24 East Taunton, Massachusetts, prepared for the Maggiore Companies”, dated May 29, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 458, Page 22 and as Parcel E on a plan by Cullinan Engineering Co. Inc., entitled “Plan of Land Stevens Street and O'Connell Way East Taunton, Massachusetts, Prepared for One Stevens LLC”, dated August 13, 2007, recorded in Plan Book 459, Page 72, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street at the land now or formerly of 73 Stevens Street Jamins LLC;
THENCE S 29°25′10″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 67.00 feet to a point.
THENCE N 56°43′22″ W along the sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 8.25 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE continuing S 36°03′59″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 45.36 feet to a concrete bound;
THENCE S 36°03′59″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 69.00 feet to a point;
THENCE S 51°31′40″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 178.97 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Silver City Galleria LLC;
THENCE N 88°13′45″ W along land now or formerly of Silver City Galleria LLC a distance of 142.82 feet to a point;
THENCE N 72°05′20″ W along land now or formerly of Silver City Galleria LLC a distance of 331.46 feet to a point;
THENCE N 70°46′43″ W along land now or formerly of Silver City Galleria LLC a distance of 246.11 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE S 41°20′14″ W along land now or formerly of Silver City Galleria LLC a distance of 70.00 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound and at the northerly sideline of County Street, State Highway Route 140, Layout #4865;
THENCE N 52°11′42″ W along the northerly sideline of County Street, State Highway Route 140, Layout #4865 a distance of 200.37 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound;
THENCE N 48°39′46″ W along the northerly sideline of County Street, State Highway Route 140, Layout #4865 a distance of 1040.93 feet to a Massachusetts Highway bound and at the easterly sideline of State Highway Route 24, Layout #3719;
THENCE N 01°00′57″ E along the easterly sideline of State Highway Route 24, Layout #3719 a distance of 290.43 feet to a point and at land now or formerly of the Taunton Development Corporation;
THENCE N 79°40′32″ E along land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation a distance of 190.04 feet to a point also being the end point of a tie line;
THENCE continuing N 79°40′32″ E along land now or formerly of Taunton Development Corporation a distance of 21.00 feet to the approximate centerline of the Cotley River and at land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC;
THENCE N 79°40′32″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 37.82 feet to a point;
THENCE S 10°07′19″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 365.13 feet to a point;
THENCE S 75°19′32″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 66.89 feet to a point;
THENCE S 05°23′38″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 141.69 feet to a point;
THENCE S 60°57′07″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 554.83 feet to a point;
THENCE S 30°37′46″ E along land now or formerly of Two Stevens LLC a distance of 72.02 feet to a point and at land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC;
THENCE S 30°37′46″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 236.68 feet to a point;
THENCE S 70°55′10″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 530.08 feet to a point;
THENCE S 88°13′45″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 139.98 feet to a point;
THENCE N 46°27′27″ E along land now or formerly of One Stevens LLC a distance of 235.54 feet to a point and at land now or formerly of Jamins LLC;
THENCE continuing N 46°27′27″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 53.00 feet to a point;
THENCE N 77°25′54″ E along land now or formerly of Jamins LLC a distance of 40.36 feet to a point on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street and the Point of Beginning; The above described parcel contains 7.966 +/− acres.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton on the west side of Stevens Street owned by the Taunton Development Corporation and shown as a proposed roadway layout on a plan by Field Engineering Co., Inc., entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II” and revised dated 3/08/2006, recorded in Plan Book 446, Page 35, and a plan entitled, “Definitive Subdivision Modification Plan of Land, Liberty and Union Industrial Park—Phase II” and dated 3/23/2007, recorded in Plan Book 458, Page 21, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street at the southeasterly corner of the parcel to be described;
THENCE S 19°18′52″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 155.23 feet to a point at land now or formerly Jamins LLC;
THENCE N 60°46′27″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 421.27 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 310.00 feet, an arc distance of 257.52 feet, a chord bearing N 36°58′32″ W and a chord length of 250.18 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 13°10′38″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 539.91 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, an arc distance of 86.47 feet, a chord bearing N 27°44′58″ W and a chord length of 85.54 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 42°19′18″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 135.62 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet, an arc distance of 167.83 feet, a chord bearing N 21°25′04″ W and a chord length of 164.13 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 00°30′50″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 118.63 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northerly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 270.00 feet, an arc distance of 184.78 feet, a chord bearing N 20°07′11″ W and a chord length of 181.20 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 39°43′33″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 100.06 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 330.00 feet, an arc distance of 93.55 feet, a chord bearing N 31°36′18″ W and a chord length of 93.23 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet, an arc distance of 49.33 feet, a chord bearing N 58°48′43″ W and a chord length of 46.26 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
THENCE northerly along the sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 75.00 feet, an arc distance of 340.17 feet, a chord bearing N 35°47′44″ E and a chord length of 115.02 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 14°16′09″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 53.96 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 270.00 feet, an arc distance of 119.96 feet, a chord bearing S 26°59′51″ E and a chord length of 118.98 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 39°43′33″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 100.06 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southeasterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 330.00 feet, an arc distance of 225.84 feet, a chord bearing S 20°07′12″ E and a chord length of 221.46 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 00°30′50″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 118.63 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southeasterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, an arc distance of 124.05 feet, a chord bearing S 21°25′04″ E and a chord length of 121.31 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 42°19′18″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 135.62 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southeasterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet, an arc distance of 116.99 feet, a chord bearing S 27°44′58″ E and a chord length of 115.74 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 13°10′38″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 533.14 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southeasterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 250.00 feet, an arc distance of 207.68 feet, a chord bearing S 36°58′32″ E and a chord length of 201.76 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE S 60°46′27″ E along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 325.24 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northeasterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 feet, an arc distance of 130.78 feet, a chord bearing N 69°16′13″ E and a chord length of 114.83 feet to the Point of Beginning;
The above described roadway parcel contains 3.442 +/− acres which, together with a 512 square foot easement on land now or formerly of Jamins LLC, constitute the O'Connell Way layout.
The 512 square foot easement description begins at a point on the northerly sideline of Stevens Street being S 19°18′52″ W and 155.23 feet distant from the beginning point of O'Connell Way described above;
THENCE N 60°46′27″ W along the westerly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 50.55 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE southerly on a curve to the right having a radius of 60.00 feet, an arc distance of 84.01 feet, a chord bearing S 20°39′44″ E and a chord length of 77.31 feet to a point on the northerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE N 19°26′59″ E along the northerly sideline of Stevens Street a distance of 50.55 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Said 512 square foot easement is on land now or formerly of Jamins LLC and is intended to be included with and for the use of O'Connell Way.
Description of land in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Bristol, City of Taunton, on the east side of O'Connell Way off Stevens Street being a land gap between the layout of O'Connell Way and Lot 10 in Plan Book 446, Page 35 and Parcel 2 described in a the deed from Taunton Development Corporation to Daniel G. DaRosa and Laurie B. DaRosa, dated July 18, 2005, recorded in Deed Book 15013, Page 42, bounded and described as follows.
Beginning on the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way at the most southwesterly corner of the parcel to be described;
THENCE N 13°10′38″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 249.36 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the left having a radius of 230.00 feet, an arc distance of 116.99 feet, a chord bearing N 27°44′58″ W and a chord length of 115.74 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 42°19′18″ W along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way a distance of 135.62 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE northwesterly along the easterly sideline of O'Connell Way on a curve to the right having a radius of 170.00 feet an arc distance of 29.76 feet, a chord bearing N 37°18′28″ W and a chord length of 29.72 feet to a point at land now or formerly L & U LLC;
THENCE N 57°42′31″ E along land now or formerly L & U LLC distance of 16.65 feet to a point at land now or formerly of Darosa (Tract 2);
THENCE S 42°19′18″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa (Tract 2) a distance of 215.61 feet to a point;
THENCE S 13°10′38″ E along land now or formerly of DaRosa (Tract 2) a distance of 349.05 feet to a point at land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC;
THENCE N 41°25′18″ W along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC a distance of 28.35 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 0.203 +/− acres.
Description of parcel of land in Taunton, Massachusetts shown as Tax Parcel 119-2-0 on the City of Taunton Assessor's plans, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, at the most northeasterly corner of the lot to be herein described and at the southeasterly corner of land now or formerly John & Betty Jean Allen;
THENCE S 07°26′15″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 50.49 feet to an angle point in the westerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE S 13°24′15″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 46.49 feet to an angle point in the westerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE S 18°41′39″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 103.43 feet to land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC;
THENCE N 65°33′57″ W along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC, a distance of 150.00 feet to corner of land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC;
THENCE N 14°26′52″ E along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC, a distance of 200.00 feet to a concrete bound at the land of John & Betty Jean Allen;
THENCE S 65°30′42″ E along land now or formerly of John & Betty Jean Allen, a distance of 150.68 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 0.699 +/− acres.
Being the same premises conveyed to Kathleen Williams and Kenneth Williams by deed of Ernestina R. Torres and Nelson Henriquez, dated July 28, 2005 and recorded in Deed Book 15029, Page 189.
Description of parcel of land in Taunton, Massachusetts shown as tax parcel 119-3-0 on the City of Taunton Assessor's plans, bounded and described as follows:
The land in Taunton, on the northwesterly side of Stevens Street, being shown as Lot #9A on a plan entitled “Property of Richard C. Tilton et ux Taunton, Mass. Scale 1″ = 20′ July 8, 1964 John P. Gonzals, Surveyor”, which plan is recorded with Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 94, Page 9 and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, at the most northeasterly corner of the lot to be herein described and at the southeasterly corner of land now or formerly Daniel & Laurie DaRosa;
THENCE S 02°11′22″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 116.64 feet to an angle point in the westerly sideline of Stevens Street;
THENCE S 05°24′21″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 22.67 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Kathleen & Kenneth Williams;
THENCE N 65°30′42″ W along land now or formerly of Kathleen & Kenneth Williams, a distance of 150.68 feet to a concrete bound at the land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC;
THENCE N 14°26′52″ E along land now or formerly of 71 Stevens Street LLC, a distance of 124.60 feet to a concrete bound at the land of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa;
THENCE S 68°39′51″ E along stonewall remains and land now or formerly of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa, a distance of 120.92 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 0.396 +/− acres.
Being the same premises conveyed to John M. Allen by deed of John M. Allen and Betty Jean Allen dated June 4, 2011 and recorded in Deed Book 20376, page 275.
Description of parcel of land in Taunton, Massachusetts shown as Tax Parcel 109-17-0 on the City of Taunton Assessors' Plans and being more particularly described as follows:
The land located on the westerly side of Stevens Street, East Taunton, Bristol County, Massachusetts shown as Lot 3B on a plan entitled, “Plan of Land Stevens Street, East Taunton, Massachusetts, prepared for Taunton Development Corporation”, prepared by Cullinan Engineering, Scale 1″ = 30′ revised dated May 31, 2005 which plan is recorded with the Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 437, Page 30, containing approximately 0.42 acres and known as and numbered 61F Stevens Street, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning on the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, at the most northeasterly corner of the lot to be herein described and at the southeasterly corner of land now or formerly Edwin DeBrum;
THENCE S 04°48′11″ W along the westerly sideline of Stevens Street, a distance of 124.70 feet to a point at the land now or formerly of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa;
THENCE N 69°41′20″ W along land now or formerly of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa, a distance of 167.82 feet to a point at the corner of land now or formerly of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa;
THENCE N 26°48′58″ E along land now or formerly of Daniel & Laurie DaRosa, a distance of 134.62 feet to a point at the land of Edwin DeBrum;
THENCE S 63°11′08″ E along land now or formerly of Edwin DeBrum, a distance of 120.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described lot contains 0.416 +/− acres.
Being the same premises conveyed to Edward A. Haskins, Jr. and Sheri L. Haskins by deed of Jeffrey D. Smith dated December 30, 2005, recorded in Deed Book 15519, Pa
The above-described lands contain a total of 321.34 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines or any other valid easements of rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting is scheduled for, Wednesday, February 3, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, February 4, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Friday, February 5, 2016, from 8 a.m. to noon.
The meeting will be conducted at the BLM Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming.
Christian Venhuizen, Wyoming Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone 307-775-6103; email
This 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Wyoming. Planned agenda topics for the February meeting (see
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on January 28, 2016.
The meeting will be conducted at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico from 9:00 a.m.-12 p.m. Following the meeting, the BLM and RAC will tour the Peña Blanca Wilderness Study Area (WSA) located in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. The field tour will depart from the BLM office at 1:30 p.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m. Both the meeting and field tour is open to the public.
Deborah Stevens, BLM Las Cruces District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001, 575-525-4421. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229, to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 10-member Las Cruces District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico.
Planned agenda items include updates on the proposed Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); the Afton Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) and Regional Mitigation Plan; and other major projects in the Las Cruces District.
A half-hour public comment period, during which the public may address the Council, will begin at 11:30 a.m. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. In addition, the public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Las
National Park Service, Interior.
Charter renewal.
The Secretary of the Interior intends to renew the National Park System Advisory Board, in accordance with section 14(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This action is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of statutory duties imposed upon the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service.
Shirley Sears, Office of Policy, National Park Service, 202-354-3955.
The Board is authorized by 54 U.S.C. 102303 (part of the 1935 Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act) and has been in existence almost continuously since 1935. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 102303, the legislative authorization for the Board expired January 1, 2010. However, due to the importance of the issues on which the Board advises, the Secretary of the Interior exercised the authority contained in 54 U.S.C. 100906 to re-establish and continue the Board as a discretionary committee from January 1, 2010, until such time as it may be legislatively reauthorized. If the Board is reauthorized legislatively within 2 years of the date of the renewal charter, the Board will revert to a legislative Board.
The advice and recommendations provided by the Board and its subcommittees fulfill an important need within the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, and it is necessary to re-establish the Board to ensure its work is not disrupted. The Board's 12 members will be balanced to represent a cross-section of disciplines and expertise relevant to the National Park Service mission. The renewal of the Board comports with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 12, 2015, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by January 25, 2016.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 12, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service (NPS), has made available for public review and comment the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (LTEMP). The LTEMP would determine specific options for dam operations (including hourly, daily, and monthly release patterns), non-flow actions, and appropriate experimental and management actions that will meet the requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, maintain or improve hydropower production, and minimize impacts on resources, including those of importance to American Indian Tribes.
Written comments on the DEIS should be submitted by April 7, 2016.
Public meetings and webinars to provide information and receive written comments will be held on:
• Webinar—Tuesday, February 16, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. MST;
• Meeting—Monday, February 22, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. MST, Flagstaff, Arizona;
• Meeting—Thursday, February 25, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. MST, Phoenix, Arizona; and
• Webinar—Tuesday, March 1, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. MST.
Staff will be available to take comments and answer questions during this time.
You may submit written comments by the following methods:
• Web site:
• Mail: Glen Canyon Dam LTEMP Draft EIS, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue—EVS/240, Argonne, Illinois 60439.
Comments will not be accepted by facsimile, email, or in any other way than those specified above. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted.
Public meetings will be held at the following locations:
• Flagstaff—USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2255 N. Gemini Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001.
• Phoenix—Embassy Suites Phoenix-Tempe, 4400 S. Rural Road, Tempe, Arizona 85282.
For specific information about the web-based meetings, please refer to the LTEMP EIS Web site at:
The DEIS may be viewed at the LTEMP EIS Web site at:
See the
Ms. Beverley Heffernan, EIS Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation,
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a comprehensive framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam over the next 20 years consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act and other provisions of applicable Federal law. The proposed action will help determine specific dam operations and actions that could be implemented to improve conditions and continue to meet the Grand Canyon Protection Act's requirements and to minimize—consistent with law—adverse impacts on the downstream natural, recreational, and cultural resources in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park, including resources of importance to American Indian Tribes.
The need for the proposed action stems from the need to use scientific information developed since the 1996 Record of Decision (ROD) to better inform the public of Department of the Interior decisions on dam operations and other management and experimental actions so that the Secretary of the Interior may continue to meet statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream resources for future generations, conserving Endangered Species Act-listed species, avoiding or mitigating impacts on National Register of Historic Properties-eligible properties, and protecting the interests of American Indian Tribes, while meeting obligations for water delivery and the generation of hydroelectric power.
The DEIS assesses the potential environmental effects of seven alternatives being considered: The No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and six Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G), which are described below. There are a number of experimental and management actions that would be incorporated into all of the LTEMP Action Alternatives, except where noted:
• High-flow experimental releases for sediment conservation—Implementation of high-flow experiments (HFEs) under all alternatives are patterned after the current HFE protocol (adopted in 2012), but each alternative includes specific modifications related to the frequency of spring and fall HFEs, the triggers for HFEs, and the overall process for implementation of HFEs, including implementation considerations and
• Nonnative fish control actions—Implementation of control actions for nonnative brown and rainbow trout are patterned after those identified in the Nonnative Fish Control Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (adopted in 2012). Nonnative fish control actions are not included in Alternative F.
• Conservation measures identified in the 2011 biological opinion on operations of Glen Canyon Dam—Potential measures include the establishment of a humpback chub refuge, evaluation of the suitability of habitat in the lower Grand Canyon for the razorback sucker, and establishment of an augmentation program for the razorback sucker, if appropriate. Other measures include humpback chub translocation, Bright Angel Creek brown trout control, Kanab ambersnail monitoring, determination of the feasibility of flow options to control trout including increasing daily down-ramp rates to strand or displace age-0 trout and high flow followed by low flow to strand or displace age-0 trout, assessments of the effects of actions on humpback chub populations, sediment research to determine effects of equalization flows, and Asian tapeworm monitoring. Most of these conservation measures are ongoing and are elements of existing management practices (
• Experimental and management actions at specific sites such as nonnative plant removal, revegetation with native species, and mitigation at specific and appropriate cultural sites—included are pilot experimental riparian vegetation restoration actions planned by the NPS. These actions would also have involvement from tribes to capture concerns regarding culturally significant native plants, and would provide an opportunity to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in a more applied manner into the long-term adaptive management program (described in more detail below).
• Preservation of historic properties through a program of research, monitoring, and mitigation to address erosion and preservation of archeological and ethnographic sites and minimize loss of integrity at National Register historic properties.
• Continued adaptive management under the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, including a research and monitoring component.
Alternative A represents continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam as guided by the 1996 ROD for operations of Glen Canyon Dam: Modified low fluctuating flow, as modified by recent Department of the Interior decisions, including those specified in the 2007 ROD on Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead (Interim Guidelines) (until 2026), the HFE EA, and the Nonnative Fish Control EA (both expiring in 2020). As is the case for all alternatives, Alternative A also includes implementation of existing and planned NPS management activities, with durations as specified in NPS management documents.
Under Alternative A, daily flow fluctuations would continue to be determined according to monthly volume brackets as follows: 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) daily range for monthly volumes less than 600 thousand acre-feet (kaf); 6,000 cfs daily range for monthly volumes between 600 kaf and 800 kaf; and 8,000 cfs for monthly volumes greater than 800 kaf.
Under Alternative A, the current HFE protocol would be followed until it expired in 2020. Under this protocol, high-flow releases may be made in spring (March and April) or fall (October and November). HFE magnitude would range from 31,500 cfs to 45,000 cfs. The duration would range from less than 1 hour to 96 hours. Frequency of HFEs would be determined by tributary sediment inputs, resource conditions, and a decision process carried out by the Department of the Interior. The HFE protocol uses a “store and release” approach in which sediment inputs are tracked over two accounting periods, one for each seasonal HFE: Spring (December through June) and fall (July through November). Under the protocol, the maximum possible magnitude and duration of HFE that would achieve a positive sand mass balance in Marble Canyon, as determined by modeling, would be implemented.
Under Alternative A, the current nonnative fish control protocol would be followed until it expired in 2020. Mechanical removal would primarily consist of the use of boat-mounted electrofishing equipment to remove all nonnative fish captured. Captured nonnative fish would be removed alive and potentially stocked into areas that have an approved stocking plan, unless live removal fails, in which case fish would be euthanized and used for later beneficial use.
The objective of Alternative B is to increase hydropower generation while limiting impacts on other resources and relying on flow and non-flow actions to the extent possible to mitigate impacts of higher fluctuations. Alternative B focuses on non-flow actions and experiments to address sediment resources, nonnative fish control, and on native and nonnative fish communities.
Under Alternative B, monthly volumes would be the same as under current operations, but daily flow fluctuations would be higher than under current operations in most months. Compared to current operations, the hourly up-ramp rate would remain unchanged at 4,000 cfs/hour, but the hourly down-ramp rate would be increased to 4,000 cfs/hour in November through March and 3,000 cfs/hour in other months.
Alternative B includes implementation of the nonnative fish control protocol and HFE protocol through the entire LTEMP period, but HFEs would be limited to a maximum of one in spring or fall every other year. In addition to these experimental actions, Alternative B would test trout management flows and hydropower improvement flows. With trout management flows, high flows (
The objective of Alternative C is to adaptively operate Glen Canyon Dam to achieve a balance of resource objectives with priorities placed on humpback chub, sediment, and minimizing impacts on hydropower. Alternative C features a number of condition-dependent flow and non-flow actions that would be triggered by resource conditions. The alternative uses decision trees to identify when experimental changes in base operations or other planned action is needed to protect resources. Operational changes or implementation of non-flow actions could be triggered by changes in sediment input, humpback chub
Monthly release volumes under Alternative C in August through November would be lower than those under most other alternatives to reduce sediment transport rates during the monsoon period. Release volumes in the high power demand months of December, January, and July would be increased to compensate for water not released in August through November, and volumes in February through June would be patterned to follow the monthly hydropower demand as defined by the contract rate of delivery. Under Alternative C, the allowable within-day fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to monthly volume (7 × monthly volume in kaf). The down-ramp rate would be increased to 2,500 cfs/hour, but the up-ramp rate would remain unchanged at 4,000 cfs/hour.
Experimentation under Alternative C includes testing the effects of the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring HFEs in high volume years (≥10 maf release volume), (3) extension of the possible duration of fall HFEs while maintaining a maximum total volume of a 96-hour 45,000 cfs release, (4) reducing fluctuations before and after HFEs, (5) mechanical removal of trout near the Little Colorado River confluence, (6) trout management flows, and (7) low summer flows during the entire LTEMP period to allow greater warming.
Alternative D is the preferred alternative for the LTEMP. The objective of Alternative D is to adaptively operate Glen Canyon Dam to best meet the resource goals of the LTEMP. Like Alternative C, Alternative D features a number of condition-dependent flow and non-flow actions that would be triggered by resource conditions.
Under Alternative D, the total monthly release volume of October, November, and December would be equal to that under Alternative A to avoid the possibility of the operational tier differing from that of Alternative A, as established in the Interim Guidelines. The August volume was set to a moderate volume level (800 kaf in an 8.23 maf release year) to balance sediment conservation prior to a potential HFE and to address power production and capacity concerns. January through July monthly volumes were set at levels that roughly track Western Area Power Administration's contract rate of delivery. This produced a redistribution of monthly release volumes under Alternative D that would result in the most even distribution of flows of any alternative except for Alternative G. The allowable within-day fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to the volume of water scheduled to be released during the month (10 × monthly volume in kaf in the high-demand months of June, July, and August and 9 × monthly volume in kaf in other months). Up- and down-ramp rates would be the same as Alternative C.
Experimentation under Alternative D includes testing the effects of the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring HFEs in high volume years (≥10 maf release volume), (3) extension of the duration of up to 45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250 hours depending on sediment availability, (4) reducing fluctuations after fall HFEs, (5) mechanical removal of trout near the Little Colorado River confluence, (6) trout management flows, (7) low summer flows in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period to allow greater warming, and (8) sustained low flows to improve the aquatic food base.
The objective of Alternative E is to provide for recovery of the humpback chub while protecting other important resources including sediment, the rainbow trout fishery at Lees Ferry, aquatic food base, and hydropower resources. Alternative E features a number of condition-dependent flow and non-flow actions that would be triggered by resource conditions.
Under Alternative E, monthly volumes would closely follow the monthly hydropower demand as defined by the contract rate of delivery. The total monthly release volume of October, November, and December, however, would be equal to that under Alternative A to minimize the possibility of the operational tier differing from that of Alternative A as established in the Interim Guidelines. In addition, lower monthly volumes (relative to Alternative A) would be targeted in August and September to reduce sediment transport during the monsoon period, when most sediment is delivered by the Paria River. The allowable within-day fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to the volume of water scheduled to be released during the month (12 × monthly volume in kaf in high power demand months of June, July, and August, and 10 × monthly volume in kaf in other months).
Experimentation under Alternative E includes testing the effects of the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered fall HFEs through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) sediment-triggered spring HFEs only in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period, (3) 24-hour proactive spring HFEs in high volume years (≥10 maf release volume), (4) reducing fluctuations before fall HFEs, (5) mechanical removal of trout near the Little Colorado River confluence, (6) trout management flows, and (7) low summer flows in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period to allow greater warming.
The objective of Alternative F is to a provide flows that follow a more natural pattern of high spring, and low summer, fall, and winter flows while limiting sediment transport and providing for warming in summer months. In keeping with this objective, Alternative F does not feature some of the flow and non-flow actions of the other alternatives.
Under Alternative F, peak flows would be lower than pre-dam magnitudes to reduce sediment transport and erosion given the reduced sand supply downstream of the dam. Peak flows would be provided in May and June, which corresponds well with the timing of the pre-dam peak. The overall peak flow in an 8.23 maf year would be 20,000 cfs (scaled proportionately in drier and wetter years), and would include a 24 hour 45,000 cfs flow at the beginning of the spring peak period (
Low base flows would be provided from July through January. These low flows would provide for warmer water temperatures, especially in years when releases are warm, and would also serve to reduce overall sand transport during the remainder of the year.
Other than testing the effectiveness of sediment-triggered HFEs, which would continue through the entire LTEMP period, there would be no explicit
The objective of Alternative G is to maximize the conservation of sediment, in order to maintain and increase sandbar size. Under Alternative G, flows would be delivered in a steady pattern throughout the year with no monthly differences in flow other than those needed to adjust operations in response to changes in forecast and other operating requirements such as equalization. In an 8.23 maf year, steady flow would be approximately 11,400 cfs.
Experimentation under Alternative G includes testing the effects of the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring HFEs in high volume years (≥10 maf release volume), (3) extension of the duration of up to 45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250 hours depending on sediment availability, (4) mechanical removal of trout near the Little Colorado River confluence, and (5) trout management flows.
The DEIS is available for reviewing on the internet at:
• J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, 295 South 1500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.
• Cline Library, Northern Arizona University, 1001 S. Knoles Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011-6022.
• Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
• Page Public Library, 479 South Lake Powell Boulevard, Page, Arizona 86040.
• Grand County Library, Moab Branch, 257 East Center Street, Moab, Utah 84532.
• Sunrise Library, 5400 East Harris Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110.
• Denver Public Library, 10 West 14th Avenue Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80204.
• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
If special assistance is required to participate in the public meeting, please contact Ms. Jayne Kelleher at 801-524-3680 or via email at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior, is announcing its intention to request renewal approval for the collection of information for Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds from Trust Status, OMB Control Number 1035-0003. This collection request has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection request, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by February 8, 2016, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1035-0003), by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email to
To request more information on this information collection or to obtain a copy of the collection instrument, see the contact information provided in the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-131), require that interested members of the public and affected parties have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d). This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians has submitted to OMB for renewal.
Public Law 103-412, The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (Act), allows Indian tribes on a voluntary basis to take their funds out of trust status within the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government) in order to manage and invest such funds on their own. 25 CFR part 1200, subpart B, Sec. 1200.13, “How does a tribe apply to withdraw funds?” describes the requirements for application for withdrawal. The Act covers all tribal trust funds including judgment funds as well as some settlements funds, but excludes funds held in Individual Indian Money accounts. Both the Act and the regulations state that upon withdrawal of the funds, the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government)
This information collection allows the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians to collect the tribes' applications for withdrawal of funds held in trust by the Department of the Interior. If this information were not collected, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians would not be able to comply with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-412), and tribes would not be able to withdraw funds held for them in trust by the Department of the Interior.
(1)
(2)
(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The statutorily-required information is needed to approve tribal applications to withdraw funds from accounts held in trust for tribes by the United States Government, for self-management.
(4) As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
The Department of the Interior invites comments on:
(a) 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;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information techniques.
“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.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comments(s), you should be aware that your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians by using the contact information in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office.
Request for information.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to improve the quality and use of research and evaluation, is requesting comments from the public on its 2016 Research and Evaluation Plan.
Written comments must be received by the office listed in the addressee section below on or before February 8, 2016.
A copy of this research and evaluation plan may be obtained free of charge by contacting Jonathan Simonetta, Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Jonathan Simonetta, Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20210, by telephone at 202-693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
U.S. Department of Labor, Chief Evaluation Office, Fiscal Year 2016 Evaluation Plan Priorities and Themes.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) directly funds and sponsors evaluations and also collaborates with other DOL agencies and programs to design and conduct evaluations that those agencies sponsor. The Department's annual evaluation plan is based mainly on agencies' priorities, the Department's Strategic Plan priorities, statutory requirements for evaluations, and continuing
In addition to funds appropriated for Departmental Program Evaluations (DPE), Division G, Title I, Section 107 of Public Law 113-235 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to reserve not more than 0.5 percent from specific budget accounts for transfer to and use by the Office of the Chief Evaluation Officer for departmental program evaluation. The accounts referred to in subsection (a) of the Act are: Training and Employment Services, Job Corps, Community Service Employment for Older Americans, State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, funding made available to the Bureau of International Affairs and Women's Bureau within the Departmental Management, Salaries and Expenses account, and Veterans Employment and Training. Set-aside funds are transferred to CEO and are available for evaluations of programs administered by the agencies responsible for those budget accounts.
Evaluation funding (core and set-aside) must be obligated within two years. The following sections present principles followed in developing the evaluation plan and a summary of the priorities and themes for potential evaluation projects expected to be initiated in FY 2016. Of particular note is that the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 requires several specific evaluations, which will be carried out collaboratively by CEO and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA); some WIOA-specific studies are included in this plan and others will be included in subsequent years' plans.
Three principles guide the Department's overall evaluation plan and all studies initiated by the CEO:
1. Prioritize studies that focus on measuring the effectiveness of key program outputs and outcomes consistent with Departmental priorities, the Departmental Strategic Plan, Agency Learning Agendas, and Agency Operating Plans.
2. Encourage the most rigorous evaluation designs possible to address the evaluation question of interest, particularly experimental designs, but also non-experimental designs, in a manner that is realistic given the programmatic missions/goals, programmatic maturity, data availability, and analytic capability.
3. Expand the capacity, knowledge, and utilization of high quality evaluation designs and methods department-wide; and improve the quality of data that can be used for evaluations.
Agency Learning Agendas identify priorities for evaluations that can help agencies measure their effectiveness, their progress towards goals and outcomes, continuous improvement, and, in some cases, meet Congressional requirements for reports and evaluations. Evaluations focus on program performance and outcomes, measuring the impacts of core programs and services, evaluating new programs and initiatives, and testing the relative effectiveness of alternative program practices, using the most rigorous methodologies possible.
These themes reflect a diverse mix of potential activities designed to build evidence about what works and the factors that influence or are related to Departmental programs. Broadly, four types of projects are considered in pursuing the priorities:
• Statistical Analyses of Trends in Programs, Labor Supply and Demand, Economic Conditions, and the Labor Market as they Relate to DOL Programs;
• Exploratory, Formative and Implementation Evaluations, and Designs and Evaluability Assessments for Pilots and Demonstrations;
• Formal Evaluations of Programs and Demonstrations; and
• Research and Evaluation Capacity Building Activities.
In FY 2016, CEO is exploring the following themes, possibly through statistical analyses using agency administrative data, surveys or statistical databases:
• Labor Market and Occupational Trends in Selected Industry Sectors;
• Gender Patterns and Pay in Occupations and Industries;
• Caregiving and Women's Retirement Security;
• Unemployment and Unemployment Insurance;
• Labor Enforcement Program Data (OSHA, WHD, OFCCP);
• Immigration, Immigrants, and Work Visas;
• Employment of Veterans; and
• Analysis of Adult Skills and Competencies.
In FY 2016, CEO is exploring the following priorities and types of studies, possibly through exploratory evaluations using formative and implementation analysis methods, and evidence reviews.
• Evidence and Literature Reviews
○ CLEAR Reviews. Structured literature and evidence reviews will be conducted using the review standards and guidelines established for the Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)
○ Active Labor Market Policies and Livelihood Services in Developing Countries;
○ Policies and Strategies to Address Child Labor and Forced Labor; and
○ Education, Training and Certification Pathways.
• Job Driven Skills and Training
○ Models for Improving Basic Skills and Career Preparation (
○ Occupational Credentialing and Training Program Practices;
○ Characteristics of, Services to, and Employment Outcomes for Unemployed and Dislocated Workers;
○ Employment Effects of Soft Skills Training and Job Search Strategies for Adults and Youth; and
○ Models of Engagement with, and Effect of Programs on, Businesses and Employers (
• WIOA Implementation
○ Implementation of WIOA; and
○ Strategies and Services Delivery in One Stop Centers/American Job Centers.
• Veterans
○ Strategies and Models of Employment Services for Serving Veterans and Alternative Models; and
○ Models for Improving the Transition of Individuals from Active Military Duty to Civilian Employment.
• Other Special Populations
○ DOL Programs and Services in Native American, Tribal, and Pacific Islander Urban and Rural Communities;
○ Employer Practices Regarding Accommodation and Talent-development of Employees with Disabilities; and
○ Role of Intermediaries, including Non-Farm Labor Contractors, in the Hiring of Farmworkers.
• Labor Standards, Worker Safety and Health, Compliance, and Compliance Assistance
○ Worker Rights in Developing Countries;
○ Child Labor Information and Technical Assistance Efforts in Developing Countries; and
○ Labor Standards in Supply Chains in Selected Industries.
In FY 2016, CEO is exploring the following themes, possibly through formal evaluations to test promising strategies, replicate proven models, and estimate the effectiveness of program components and service delivery approaches:
• Youth
○ National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Job ChalleNGe Demonstration;
○ Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) for Disconnected Youth;
○ Job Corps Innovations Pilots; and
○ Youth Build.
• Job-Driven Skills and Training
○ American Apprenticeship Initiative Grants;
○ Employment and Training Services for Adults, Dislocated Workers, Out of School Youth, and Foster Youth;
○ Innovative Career Pathways Models; and
○ Subsidized Employment and Tax Credit Strategies to Increase Employment.
• Employment and Reemployment
○ Innovative Strategies for Improving Employment Outcomes for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Individuals and
○ Effective Reemployment Strategies for Unemployed Workers and Recipients of Unemployment Insurance.
• Behavioral Economics and Insights
○ Evaluations Using Behavioral Insights to Improve Program Outcomes in DOL Employment and Training and Worker Protection Programs.
• Labor Standards, Worker Health and Safety, Compliance and Compliance Assistance
○ Deterrence Strategies for Improving Compliance with Labor Standards Laws and Regulations;
○ Evaluation of Voluntary Compliance with Labor Standards Laws and Regulations;
○ Effectiveness of Various Methods and Strategies for Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement; and
○ Improving Injury and Illness Reporting.
• Worker Security, Benefits, and Tax Strategies
○ Effectiveness of Financial Literacy Strategies;
○ Effect of Worker Benefits on Family, Worker, and Child Well-being; and
○ Effectiveness of Tax Credits and Wage Subsidy Strategies on Employment Outcomes.
• Outreach, Information, Training, and Technical Assistance
○ Effective Translation and Adoption of Federal Policies by States and Localities;
○ Effectiveness of Inspector Training Programs; and
○ Effectiveness of Technical Assistance and Outreach.
It is important to complement evaluation studies with other activities designed to continuously reinforce the role of evaluation at DOL: The importance of evaluation for achieving performance goals and objectives; the integration of evaluation into ongoing management; and the expectation of high quality products and reports. Dissemination of evaluation reports and access to accumulating evidence is also essential, as is the commitment to developing a pipeline of labor-focused young evaluators/scholars. This category includes various activities to continue to build DOL's evaluation capacity, such as:
• DOL Scholars Research Program (with priority given to young scholars);
• Collaborative Cross-Agency Statistical Analysis; and
• Wage Record Data Exchanges for Evaluations.
• Are there other themes or topics that should be considered for inclusion in the evaluation plan?
• What types of evaluations or topics would be of most relevance to program practitioners?
• Are there any particular data or resource constraints that should be considered?
On page one of your submission, please indicate your name, the name of your organization (if applicable), and your contact information (including phone number, postal address, and email address). While not required, it would assist us in reviewing your information if you also included the type of organization you represent (public, private, not-for-profit, or philanthropic), the field(s) in which you work and the level at which you operate (national, state, regional, local or tribal).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed approval for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “VETS' Competitive Grant Programs Reporting Data Collection.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 8, 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 for free by contacting Bradley Sickles by telephone at (202) 693-4741 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Bradley Sickles, by telephone at (202) 693-4741 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data will be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The forms and formats contained in this information collection request apply to the following competitive grants (CG): Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) and the Stand Down Grants Program (38 U.S.C. 2021); Homeless Female Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Families (HFVHVF) reintegration grant program (38 U.S.C. 2021A); Incarcerated Veterans' Transition Program (IVTP) (38 U.S.C. 2023); and the Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), (29 U.S.C. 2913). This information collection is authorized by the provisions at 38 U.S.C. 2021(b); 38 U.S.C. 2021A(c); 29 U.S.C. 2913(b)(2); and section 200.328, title II, Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.328).
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 the OMB approves it under the PRA and it 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. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the addresses section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention “VETS' CG Programs Reporting Data Collection.”
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
1. VETS-700, Competitive Grants (CG) Planned Goals Chart;
2. VETS-701, CG Technical Performance Report (TPR);
3. VETS-702, CG Technical Performance Narrative (TPN);
4. VETS-703, Stand Down After Action Report (SDAAR)
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Agreement Approval Process for Use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs,” 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 February 8, 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-OFCCP, 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 Seleda Perryman by telephone at 202-693-4131, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Agreement Approval Process for Use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs. The regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 permit Federal supply and service contractors to develop affirmative action programs (AAPs) that are based on business functions or business units rather than AAPs based on establishments. Functional affirmative action programs (FAAPs) are designed to provide contractors with the option of creating AAPs that better fit their business needs. To develop and implement a FAAP, Federal contractors must receive written approval from the Director of OFCCP. This Information Collection Request (ICR) addresses the collection of information associated with the process for obtaining, modifying, updating, and renewing an agreement that allows contractors to develop and use functional AAPs. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because OFCCP is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of 1,427 hours (9.5 hour per contractor) in reporting burden for its approval process to allow contractors to develop function based affirmative action programs. This is an increase over the previous request of 926 hours (7.6 hours per contractor). The increase is primarily attributed to the addition of a certification requirement. Additionally, in response to contractor comments, OFCCP removed the requirement in the previous directive that contractors requesting to use functional or business unit affirmative action programs provide a copy of a Federal contract. There are no recordkeeping or third party disclosure burdens associated with this Information Collection Request. Those requirements are accounted for under 1250-0003. 41 CFR 60-2.1(d)(4) 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.
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,
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability of the OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for FY 2016.
OMB is issuing its Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for FY 2016 to report on compliance of enacted 2016 discretionary appropriations legislation with the discretionary caps. The report finds that enacted appropriations are within the current law defense and non-defense discretionary limits for 2016; therefore, a sequestration of discretionary budget authority is not required.
SUBMISSION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—Each report required by this section shall be submitted, in the case of CBO, to the House of Representatives, the Senate and OMB and, in the case of OMB, to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President on the day it is issued. On the following day a notice of the report shall be printed in the
The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address:
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments on this notice must be received by March 8, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send email to
Abstract: The NSF, pursuant to the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2401
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at title 45 part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by February 8, 2016. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the
Michael Gooseff, INSTAAR, 1560 30th Street, Boulder, CO 80309
Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant plans to enter Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, to continue operation of a previously installed, continuously recording stream gauge station, perform maintenance, conduct stream flow measurements and collect water quality samples near the stream gauge site. The applicant will also collect water quality samples of the melt-water of the Canada Glacier and along the length of the stream to study in-stream biogeochemical processes. The applicant plans to collect a maximum of five moss samples per year using a 3 cm corer to a depth of about 3 cm and a maximum of five soil samples of approximately 200 g per year from which to extract nematodes. Photography, LIDAR, and other survey and monitoring techniques may be used to detect changes in the stream bed and algal mat distribution over time, and/or to monitor the change in the stream gauge system through time.
The applicant also plans to enter Lower Taylor Glacier and Blood Falls to continue measurements of the Santa Fe Stream including: Stream-flow using velocity meters; pH, temperature, and conductivity via meters; and collection of water quality samples. The collection of water from the Blood Falls area occurs on the glacial moraine, not the glacier itself, and the sample is small (< 1 L) and comprised of both brine reservoir discharge (when present) and surface ice melt-water.
ASPA no. 131, Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land; ASPA No. 172, Lower Taylor Glacier and Blood Falls, Taylor Valley, McMurdo Dry Valleys, Victoria Land.
February 29, 2016 to February 28, 2021.
January 11, 18, 25, February 1, 8, 15, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 11, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 18, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 25, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 1, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 8, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 15, 2016.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Pursuant to Title 10 of the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within thirty days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR. 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning this import license amendment application follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Parcel Select Contract 13 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-75 and CP2016-93 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Parcel Select Contract 13 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 11, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Nina Yeh to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-75 and CP2016-93 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Nina Yeh is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 11, 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 an amendment to First-Class Package Service Contract 37 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 December 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing First-Class Package Service Contract 37 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment 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.
The Amendment modifies the Annual Adjustment provision in section II. 1 of the existing agreement. Notice, Attachment A at 1.
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. Notice at 1. The Postal Service asserts that the Amendment will not impair the ability of the contract to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633.
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 January 11, 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. CP2014-75 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 January 11, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 42 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-74 and CP2016-91 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 42 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 11, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-74 and CP2016-91 to
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 11, 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 an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 41 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 December 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 41 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.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day 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 January 11, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Nina Yeh to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2012-47 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Nina Yeh 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 January 11, 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 an additional Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 2 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 December 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 2 (GREPS 2) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers under seal. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2), a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a) was filed with the Commission on January 4, 2016.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2016-92 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 11, 2016. The public portions of the filing can be
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2016-92 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 11, 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 an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 138 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 December 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 138 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment and supporting financial information under seal.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day 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 January 11, 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. CP2015-112 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 January 11, 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 an amendment to Parcel Select Contract 9 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 December 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Parcel Select Contract 9 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 seeks to adjust the prices listed in Table 2 of section I.E.3,
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice. Notice at 1.
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 January 11, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2015-55 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Derrick D. Dennis 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 January 11, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 30, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria W. Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 31, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the shares of the following under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”):
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of each Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
First Trust Advisors L.P. will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Funds. RiverFront Investment Group, LLC will serve as investment sub-adviser (“Sub-Adviser”) to the Funds and provide day-to-day portfolio management. First Trust Portfolios L.P. (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of each Fund's Shares. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) will act as the administrator, accounting agent, custodian and transfer agent to the Funds.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
In addition, personnel who make decisions on each Fund's portfolio composition will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser registers as a broker-dealer, or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with another broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
Each Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Each Fund's investment objective will be to provide capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions,
For each Fund, (a) “Principal Equity Securities” will consist of the following U.S. and non-U.S. exchange-listed securities: (i) Common stocks; (ii) common and preferred shares of real estate investment trusts (“REITs”);
(i) For the Europe Fund, Principal Fund Equity Securities will be Principal Equity Securities of European companies;
(ii) for the Asia Pacific Fund, Principal Fund Equity Securities will be Principal Equity Securities of Asian Pacific companies;
(iii) for the Emerging Markets Fund, Principal Fund Equity Securities will be Principal Equity Securities of emerging market companies;
(iv) for the Developed International Fund, Principal Fund Equity Securities will be Principal Equity Securities of developed market companies.
In selecting securities for a Fund, the Sub-Adviser will score individual securities from a portfolio of eligible securities according to several core attributes, including, but not limited to, value, quality and momentum, using multiple proprietary factors within each core attribute.
In addition, for each Fund, by entering into Forward Contracts and currency spot transactions, the Sub-Adviser will deploy a dynamic currency hedge (hedging up to 100% of such Fund's foreign currency exposure) based on its proprietary hedging methodology. The Sub-Adviser's hedging methodology will be constructed from a combination of quantitative measures, such as interest-rate differentials, central bank balance sheet expansion/contraction, and price momentum, and qualitative measures, such as formal and informal guidance from central bankers. Each Fund will only enter into transactions in Forward Contracts with counterparties that the Adviser and/or the Sub-Adviser reasonably believe are capable of performing under the applicable Forward Contract.
Each Fund may invest (in the aggregate) up to 20% of its net assets in the following securities and instruments:
Each Fund may invest in the following U.S. and non-U.S. exchange-listed securities (other than Principal Fund Equity Securities): (i) Common stocks; (ii) common and preferred shares of REITs; (iii) Depositary Receipts; and (iv) equity securities of business development companies (“BDCs”) (collectively, “Other Equity Securities”).
Each Fund may invest in short-term debt securities and other short-term debt instruments (described below), as well as cash equivalents, or it may hold cash. The percentage of each Fund invested in such holdings or held in cash will vary and will depend on several factors, including market conditions. Each Fund may invest in the following short-term debt instruments:
Each Fund may invest (but only up to 5% of its net assets) in exchange-listed equity index futures contracts.
Under normal market conditions, each Fund will invest in at least 20 Equity Securities. Each Fund will satisfy the “ISG Criteria” (as described below) and/or the “Alternative Criteria” (as described below).
A Fund will satisfy the ISG Criteria if at least 90% of such Fund's net assets that are invested (in the aggregate) in Equity Securities will be invested in Equity Securities that trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”)
A Fund will satisfy the Alternative Criteria if, under normal market conditions, its Equity Securities meet the following criteria at the time of purchase: (1) Non-U.S. Equity Securities
Each Fund's transactions in Forward Contracts and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts will be consistent with its investment objective and the 1940 Act and will not be used to seek to achieve a multiple or inverse multiple of an index. Each Fund will comply with the regulatory requirements of the Commission with respect to coverage in connection with its transactions in Forward Contracts and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts. If the applicable guidelines prescribed under the 1940 Act so require, a Fund will earmark cash, U.S. government securities and/or other liquid assets permitted by the Commission in the amount prescribed.
Each Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), deemed illiquid by the Adviser and/or the Sub-Adviser.
The Funds may not invest 25% or more of the value of their respective total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry. This restriction does not apply to (a) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities or (b) securities of other investment companies.
Each Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at net asset value (“NAV”)
Creations and redemptions must be made by or through an Authorized Participant that has executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor and BBH with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the transfer agent no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time) (the “Closing Time”) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt not later than the Closing Time of a redemption request in proper form by a Fund through the transfer agent and only on a business day.
The Funds' custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the list of the names and quantities of the securities comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business day prior to commencement of trading in the Shares.
Each Fund's NAV will be determined as of the close of regular trading on the NYSE on each day the NYSE is open for trading. If the NYSE closes early on a valuation day, the NAV will be determined as of that time. NAV per Share will be calculated for each Fund by taking the value of such Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, including accrued expenses and dividends declared but unpaid, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share. All valuations will be subject to review by the Trust Board or its delegate.
The Funds' investments will be valued daily. As described more specifically below, investments traded on an exchange (
Certain securities in which a Fund may invest will not be listed on any securities exchange or board of trade. Such securities will typically be bought and sold by institutional investors in individually negotiated private transactions that function in many respects like an over-the-counter secondary market, although typically no formal market makers will exist. Certain securities, particularly debt securities, will have few or no trades, or trade infrequently, and information regarding a specific security may not be widely available or may be incomplete. Accordingly, determinations of the value of debt securities may be based on infrequent and dated information. Because there is less reliable, objective data available, elements of judgment may play a greater role in valuation of debt securities than for other types of securities.
The information summarized below is based on the Valuation Procedures as currently in effect; however, as noted above, the Valuation Procedures are amended from time to time and, therefore, such information is subject to change.
The following investments will typically be valued using information provided by a Pricing Service: (a) Except as provided below, short-term U.S. government securities, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances and short-term debt obligations issued or guaranteed by non-U.S. governments or by their agencies or instrumentalities, all as set forth under “Other Investments for the Funds” (collectively, “Short-Term Debt Instruments”) and (b) currency spot transactions. Debt instruments may be valued at evaluated mean prices, as provided by Pricing Services. Pricing Services typically value non-exchange-traded instruments utilizing a range of market-based inputs and assumptions, including readily available market quotations obtained from broker-dealers making markets in such instruments, cash flows, and transactions for comparable instruments. In pricing certain instruments, the Pricing Services may consider information about an instrument's issuer or market activity provided by the Adviser and/or the Sub-Adviser.
Short-Term Debt Instruments having a remaining maturity of 60 days or less when purchased will typically be valued at cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts, provided the Pricing Committee has determined that the use of amortized cost is an appropriate reflection of value given market and issuer-specific conditions existing at the time of the determination.
Repurchase agreements will typically be valued as follows:
Overnight repurchase agreements will be valued at amortized cost when it represents the best estimate of value. Term repurchase agreements (
Certificates of deposit and bank time deposits will typically be valued at cost.
Equity Securities that are listed on any exchange other than the Exchange and the London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”) will typically be valued at the last sale price on the exchange on which they are principally traded on the business day as of which such value is being
Exchange-listed equity index futures contracts will typically be valued at the closing price in the market where such instruments are principally traded.
Forward Contracts will typically be valued at the current day's interpolated foreign exchange rate, as calculated using the current day's spot rate, and the thirty, sixty, ninety and one-hundred-eighty day forward rates provided by a Pricing Service or by certain independent dealers in such contracts.
Because foreign exchanges may be open on different days than the days during which an investor may purchase or sell Shares, the value of the Funds' assets may change on days when investors are not able to purchase or sell Shares. Assets denominated in foreign currencies will be translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate of such currencies against the U.S. dollar as provided by a Pricing Service. The value of assets denominated in foreign currencies will be converted into U.S. dollars at the exchange rates in effect at the time of valuation.
The Funds' Web site (
Each Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include sufficient information for market participants to use to value these positions intraday. On a daily basis, each Fund will disclose on its Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, for each Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's Disclosed Portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of a Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Investors will also be able to obtain each Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. Each Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from such Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Pricing information for Short-Term Debt Instruments, repurchase agreements, Forward Contracts, bank time deposits, certificates of deposit and currency spot transactions will be
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, each Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of a Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of a Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of a Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain of the Equity Securities and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts held by the Funds with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG,
For each Fund, at least 90% of such Fund's net assets that are invested (in the aggregate) in exchange-listed equity index futures contracts will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular for each Fund will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular for each Fund will reference that such Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular for each Fund will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of such Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular for each Fund will disclose that information about the Shares of such Fund will be publicly available on such Fund's Web site.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
Neither the Adviser nor the Sub-Adviser is a broker-dealer, but each is affiliated with a broker-dealer, and is required to implement a “fire wall” with respect to its respective broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to each Fund's portfolio. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain of the Equity Securities and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts held by the Funds with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and such securities and instruments held by the Funds from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain of the Equity Securities and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts held by the Funds from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Funds reported to FINRA's TRACE. For each Fund, at least 90% of such Fund's net assets that are invested (in the aggregate) in exchange-listed equity index futures contracts will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. Under normal market conditions, each Fund will invest in at least 20 Equity Securities. Moreover, each Fund will satisfy the ISG Criteria and/or the Alternative Criteria.
The investment objective of each Fund will be to provide capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions, each Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets (including investment borrowings) in Principal Fund Equity Securities, Forward Contracts and currency transactions entered into on a spot (
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, each Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the CTA plans for the Shares. Quotation and last sale information for the Equity Securities (to the extent traded on a U.S. exchange) will be available from the exchanges on which they are traded as well as in accordance with any applicable CTA plans.
Pricing information for Short-Term Debt Instruments, repurchase agreements, Forward Contracts, bank time deposits, certificates of deposit and currency spot transactions will be available from major broker-dealer firms and/or major market data vendors and/or Pricing Services. Pricing information for exchange-listed equity index futures contracts and non-U.S. Equity Securities will be available from the applicable listing exchange and from major market data vendors.
Each Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for such Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Funds will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of a Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding each Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
Each Fund's investments will be valued daily. Investments traded on an exchange (
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain of the Equity Securities and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts held by the Funds with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and such securities and instruments held by the Funds from such markets and other entities.
In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain of the Equity Securities and exchange-listed equity index futures contracts held by the Funds from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Funds reported to FINRA's TRACE. Furthermore, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Funds' holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. For each Fund, at least 90% of such Fund's net assets that are invested (in the aggregate) in exchange-listed equity index futures contracts will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. Under normal market conditions, each Fund will invest in at least 20 Equity Securities. Moreover, each Fund will satisfy the ISG Criteria and/or the Alternative Criteria.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded fund [sic] that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 6, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing structure. Under such pricing structure, a Member will receive a rebate of anywhere between $0.0025 and $0.0035 per share executed, depending on the volume tier for which such Member qualifies. The Exchange proposes to adopt a new tier called the Investor Depth Tier under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule. Members who would qualify for the Investor Depth Tier would receive a rebate of $0.0033 per share where they: (i) Add an ADV
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
Volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because they will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
In particular, the Exchange believes the addition of the Investor Depth Tier is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Investor Depth Tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add displayed liquidity to the EDGX Book
The Exchange also notes that the criteria and rebate under the Investor Depth Tier is equitable and reasonable as compared to other tiers offered by the Exchange. For example, under the Investor Tier Members may receive a rebate of $0.0032 per share where they (i) add an ADV of at least 0.15% of the TCV; and (ii) have an “added liquidity” as a percentage of “added plus removed liquidity” of at least 85%. These thresholds mirror the first two thresholds required to meet the proposed Investor Depth Tier. However, in order to achieve the higher rebate of $0.0033 per share provided by the proposed Investor Depth Tier, Members must also add an ADV of at least 500,000 share as Non-displayed orders that yield fee code HA.
The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendment to its Fee Schedule would 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 the proposed change represents 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 change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new tier would burden competition, but instead, enhances competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and draw additional volume to the Exchange. As stated above, 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 structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed change is generally intended to enhance the rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed tier would burden intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members uniformly.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 18, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program that will expire on March 1, 2016.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a renewal of an existing computer matching program that we are currently conducting with RRB.
We will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below.
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869 or writing to the Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the terms, safeguards, and procedures under which RRB, as the source agency, will disclose RRB annuity payment data to us, the recipient agency. We will use the information to verify Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Special Veterans Benefits (SVB) eligibility and benefit payment amounts. We will also record the railroad annuity amounts RRB paid to SSI and SVB recipients in the Supplemental Security Income Record (SSR).
The legal authority for this agreement is executed in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder.
Legal authority for the disclosure under this agreement for the SSI portion are sections 1631(e)(1)(A) and (B) and 1631(f) of the Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(A) and (B) and 1383(f)). The legal authority for the disclosure under this agreement for the SVB portion is section 806(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1006(b)).
RRB will provide us with an electronic data file containing annuity payment data from RRB's system of records, RRB-22 Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefits System, last published on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 58890). We will match RRB's data with data maintained in the SSR, Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits, SSA/ODSSIS, 60-0103, published on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1830) and December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723). SVB data also resides on the SSR.
The effective date of this matching program is March 2, 2016, provided that the following notice periods have lapsed: 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
RTCA Special Committee 214 held jointly with EUROCAE WG-78: Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of twenty five meeting of RTCA Special Committee 214 to be held jointly with EUROCAE WG-78: Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.
The meeting will be held January 13th, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held on WebEx Primary at 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910.
Karen Hofmann, 202-330-0680,
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 214/EUROCAE WG-78: Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services. The meeting objectives are to resolve issue that came up after last plenary resolution and approval of comments received during FRAC/Open consultation of Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards SPR and INTEROPS and approve the documents for submission to RTCA PMC and EUROCAE Council for publication.
The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Extension as required by ANILCA title XI.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities filed a title XI ANILCA application with the FAA, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 9, 2015. ANILCA section 1104(e), states that “the final environmental impact statement shall be completed within one year from the date of such filing. Such nine-month and one-year periods may be extended for good cause by the Federal agency head assigned lead responsibility for the preparation of such statement if he determines that additional time is necessary for such preparation, notifies the applicant in writing of such determination and publishes notice of such determination, together with the reasons therefore, in the
Leslie Grey, AAL-611, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue Box #14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Ms. Grey may be contacted during business hours at (907) 271-5453 (telephone) and (907) 271-2851 (fax), or by email at
Additional details regarding the project can be found on the project Web site at
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
30-day notice of intent to seek extension of approval: Waybill Compliance Survey.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an extension of the Waybill Compliance Survey, which is further described below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility.
In order to determine whether any of the surveyed railroads should be filing a Waybill Sample, the Board needs to collect the information in the Waybill Compliance Survey—information on the number of carloads of traffic terminated each year by U.S. railroads—from railroads that are not filing a Waybill Sample. The Board has authority to collect this information under 49 U.S.C. 11144-45, and under 49 CFR 1244.2.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by February 8, 2016.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, Annual Waybill Compliance Survey.” These comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Chandana L. Achanta, Surface Transportation Board Desk Officer, by email at
For further information regarding the “Annual Waybill Compliance Survey,” contact Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333 or at
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under § 3507(b) of the PRA, federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Jackson County, Mo. (Jackson County), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Union Pacific Railroad Company and to operate, approximately 17.7 miles of rail line between milepost 288.3 and milepost 270.6, in Jackson County, Mo.
The transaction may not be consummated until January 22, 2016 (30 days after the notice of exemption was filed).
Jackson County certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in its becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
Jackson County states that the agreement between the parties does not contain any provision that prohibits it from interchanging traffic with a third party or limits its ability to interchange with a third party.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than January 15, 2016 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35982, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Kevin M. Sheys, 1666 K St. NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.
According to Jackson County, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (Department) or (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Office of the Secretary, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew a collection. This collection renewal request includes one Short Term Lending Program (STLP) application used for both new loan guarantee applicants and renewal loan guarantee applicants. The information collected in the STLP application will determine the applicant's eligibility and is necessary to approve or deny a loan. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2016.
You may submit your comments identified by DOT-OST-2015-0211 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John Ralston, Manager, Financial Assistance Division, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Routing Symbol S-40, 202-366-5577 (phone) or
a. Business, trade, or job performance reference letters;
b. DBE or other eligible certification letters;
c. Aging report of receivables and payables;
d. Business tax returns;
e. Business financial statements;
f. Personal income tax returns;
g. Personal financial statements;
h. Schedule of work in progress (WIP);
i. Signed and dated copy of transportation-related contracts;
j. Business debt schedule;
k. Cash flow projections;
l. Owner(s) and key management resumes.
Frequency: Once.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 12 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1200 hours.
Frequency: Annually, up to five years.
Estimated Average Burden per Response:
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.
Frequency: Annually.
Estimated Average Burden per Response:
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.
Frequency: Annually.
Estimated Average Burden per Response:
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.
Frequency: Monthly.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.
Frequency: Monthly.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.
Frequency: Once.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25 hours.
Frequency: Once.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25 hours.
Frequency: Once.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25 hours.
Grand Total Annual Estimation of Burden Hours: 1825.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (Department) or (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2016.
Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0153 and may be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony Burton, Office of Policy, Office of the Secretary, W84-230, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2278 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
1. Which of the seven goals have you adopted, and what activities have you undertaken to meet those goals? For reference, the seven goals are:
(1) Take a Complete Streets approach;
(2) Identify and address barriers;
(3) Gather and track data;
(4) Use context-sensitive designs;
(5) Complete bike-ped networks;
(6) Improve laws and regulations; and
(7) Educate and enforce proper road use.
2. What have been the primary challenges and obstacles to bicycle and pedestrian safety in your community, and what if any actions have you taken to address these challenges and obstacles?
3. What if any changes have resulted from the challenge activities?
(1) Changes to physical infrastructure,
(2) Decision-making processes,
(3) Policies or procedures,
(4) Enforcement,
(5) Education and awareness of your community
(6) Other:
4. Please use the following table to indicate whether you have data on the impact of the Mayors' Challenge activities, and what the extent of that impact is.
5. Which DOT resources, tools, and data have been most useful in your challenge?
6. Which non-DOT resources, tools, and data have been most useful in your challenge?
7. What resources, tools, and data do you wish were available?
8. What are the most useful formats for receiving information from USDOT, and why (
9. What efforts in your city to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety in your community were already underway at the time of the Mayors' Challenge? How has the Mayors' Challenge added value and/or helped to fill any gaps in your city's efforts to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety?
10. In planning and project delivery of pedestrian and/or bicycle infrastructure projects, to what extent has your city coordinated with your Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Regional Planning Organization (RPO), State Department of Transportation (DOT), and Federal Regional/Division office partners? Please note type of outreach and coordination, and outcomes it led to.
11. What have been the key benefits and lessons learned as a result of the Mayors' Challenge?
12. Do you think the Mayors' challenge has helped make any permanent changes in pedestrian and bike safety and accommodation in your city/town?
Veteran's Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veteran's Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 8, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Thomas Pasakarnis at (202) 461-5869 or FAX (202) 495-5401.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, Veteran's Experience invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
“I got the service I needed.”
“It was easy to get what I needed.”
“I felt like a valued customer.”
“I trust VA to fulfill our country's commitment to veterans.”
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Adding these questions is necessary to establish an enterprise measure of VA's performance as experienced by our Veterans, as is needed to support VA's Veterans Experience FY16-17 APG. VA's goal is to incorporate these four survey questions into VA's existing customer experience by Q1 FY2016. The information collected will be used by VA departmental leadership to track enterprise performance improvements as experienced by our Veterans.
VA expects that it will take approximately one minute for each survey respondent to answer these new questions. As set forth below, this change is expected to affect approximately 132 instruments approved under eleven different OMB control numbers. Together, these instruments are nearly 1.5 million times per year. The cumulative annual burden of this change is more than 24,000 hours ((1 minute per submission * 1,462,937 submissions)/60 minutes per hour = 24,382.28 hours). There is also some annual cost burden associated with this request. Specifically, some of these instruments are administered by third-party contractors, who will need to revise the instruments.
VA has provided a table detailing the full burden information for each information collection located at
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is updating the monetary reimbursement rates for caskets and urns purchased for the interment in a VA national cemetery of Veterans who die with no known next of kin and where there are insufficient resources for furnishing a burial container. The purpose of this notice is to notify interested parties of the rates that will apply to reimbursement claims that occur during calendar year (CY) 2016.
Tamula Jones, Budget Operations and Field Support Division, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: 202-461-6688 (this is not a toll-free number).
Title 38, United States Code, Section 2306(f) authorizes VA National Cemetery
Reimbursement for a claim received in any CY will not exceed the average cost of a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn during the fiscal year (FY) preceding the CY of the claim. Average costs are determined by market analysis for 20-gauge metal caskets, designed to contain human remains, with a gasketed seal, and external rails or handles. The same analysis is completed for durable plastic urns, designed to contain cremated human remains, which include a secure closure to contain the cremated remains.
Using this method of computation, in FY 2015, the average costs for caskets were determined to be $2,421.00, and $244.00 for urns. Accordingly, the reimbursement rates payable for qualifying interments occurring during CY 2016 is $2,421.00 for caskets and $244 for urns.
Request approval to publish in the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on January 5, 2016 for publication.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2., that the MyVA Advisory Committee (MVAC) will meet February 1-2, 2016, at the Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Executive Director, MyVA Task Force Office regarding the My VA initiative and VA's ability to rebuild trust with Veterans and other stakeholders, improve service delivery with a focus on Veteran outcomes, and set the course for longer-term excellence and reform of VA.
On February 1, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the Committee will meet to discuss the progress on, and the integration of, the work in the five key MyVA work streams—Veteran Experience (explaining the efforts conducted to improve the Veteran's experience), Employees Experience, Support Services Excellence (such as information technology, human resources, and finance), Performance Improvement (projects undertaken to date and those upcoming), and VA Strategic Partnerships.
On February 2, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the Committee will meet to discuss and recommend areas for improvement on VA's work to date, plans for the future, and integration of the MyVA efforts. This session is open to the public. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Debra Walker, Designated Federal Officer, MyVA Program Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1800 G Street NW., Room 880-40, Washington, DC, 20420, or email at
Because the meeting will be held in a Government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid photo government issued ID. Please allow a minimum of one hour to move through the security process, which includes a metal detector, prior to the start of the meeting.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (beverage vending machines or BVM). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. DOE is also amending the definition for Class A equipment to more unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. In addition, DOE is amending the definition of combination vending machine, is defining two new classes of combination vending machines, Combination A and Combination B, and is promulgating standards for those new classes. Finally, DOE is adopting new provisions that DOE will use to verify the appropriate equipment class and refrigerated volume during enforcement testing.
The effective date of this rule is March 8, 2016. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for beverage vending machines in this final rule is required on and after January 8, 2019. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 8, 2016.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email:
This final rule incorporates by reference into part 431 the following industry standard:
• ASTM E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,” approved April 1, 2009.
Copies of ASTM standards may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-2786, or go to
See section IV.O for a further discussion of this standard.
Table of Contents
Title III, Part A
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. The new and amended standards, which are described in terms of the maximum daily energy consumption (MDEC) as a function of refrigerated volume, are shown in Table I.1. Specifically, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards established by the 2009 BVM final rule for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. In addition, DOE is establishing two new equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.292, Combination A and Combination B, as well as new energy conservation standards for those equipment classes. The new and amended standards adopted in this final rule will apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 8, 2019.
Table I.2 and Table I.3 present DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the new and amended energy conservation standards on customers, or purchasers, of beverage vending machines, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).