Page Range | 1115-1290 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 1186 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
81 FR 1163 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 1167 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
81 FR 1165 - Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
81 FR 1165 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 33-Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Authorization of Production Activity; DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation, Subzone 33E (Thermal Transfer Ribbon Master Rolls), Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania | |
81 FR 1165 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 133-Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois; Authorization of Production Activity; CNH Industrial America, LLC; Subzone 133E, (Agricultural and Construction Equipment, Subassemblies and Kits), Burlington and West Burlington, Iowa | |
81 FR 1164 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 29-Louisville, Kentucky; Authorization of Production Activity; Custom Quality Services (Liquor Kitting), Louisville, Kentucky | |
81 FR 1169 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part; 2013 | |
81 FR 1189 - Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities; Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities; Announcement of Meeting | |
81 FR 1184 - Adequacy Status of the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Reasonable Further Progress 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes | |
81 FR 1185 - Proposed CERCLA Section 122(g)(4) Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Towns of Guilderland and Colonie, Albany County, New York | |
81 FR 1198 - Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians-Amendment to Liquor Control Ordinance | |
81 FR 1202 - Proposed Information Collection; Commercial Use Authorizations | |
81 FR 1175 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1274 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Munch and Expressionism” Exhibition | |
81 FR 1120 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Removal of 24 CFR 280-Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grants Program | |
81 FR 1206 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C. | |
81 FR 1206 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-R Consortium, Inc. | |
81 FR 1234 - In the Matter of Northern States Power Company, Minnesota | |
81 FR 1174 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
81 FR 1194 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 1201 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NV | |
81 FR 1279 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Application for Employment With the Federal Aviation Administration | |
81 FR 1279 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certificated Training Centers-Simulator Rule | |
81 FR 1274 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Bellissima: Italy and High Fashion 1945-1968” Exhibition | |
81 FR 1274 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Vigée Le Brun: Woman Artist in Revolutionary France” Exhibition | |
81 FR 1275 - Notice of Closed Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 1280 - Noise Exposure Map Notice; Burlington International Airport; South Burlington, Vermont | |
81 FR 1280 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Extension of Public Scoping Comment Period for the Spaceport Camden Environmental Impact Statement. | |
81 FR 1202 - Notice of Temporary Closures of Public Lands for the King of the Hammers Race in San Bernardino County, CA | |
81 FR 1272 - Announcement of Lean for Main Street Training Challenge | |
81 FR 1289 - Adjustment to Rail Passenger Transportation Liability Cap | |
81 FR 1164 - Annual Wholesale Trade Survey | |
81 FR 1281 - Noise Exposure Map Notice; Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport; Westfield, Massachusetts | |
81 FR 1174 - Technology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1288 - Developing Evidence Based Fatigue Risk Management Guidelines for Emergency Medical Services | |
81 FR 1281 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
81 FR 1284 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
81 FR 1172 - Endangered Species; File No. 19288 | |
81 FR 1163 - Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 1289 - Departmental Offices; Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited to Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs; Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
81 FR 1205 - Certain Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) Products and Components Thereof Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 1204 - Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Adopt a Recommended Remand Determination; Issuance of Modified Civil Penalty Order and Termination of Remand Enforcement Proceeding | |
81 FR 1190 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 1182 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 1180 - Twain Resources, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 1180 - City of Azusa, California; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 1180 - Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice Of Technical Conference | |
81 FR 1181 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 1185 - Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) | |
81 FR 1186 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10328, CommunitySouth Bank and Trust, Easley, SC | |
81 FR 1196 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1186 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10289, First Commerce Community Bank, Douglasville, Georgia | |
81 FR 1186 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10207, McIntosh Commercial Bank Carrollton, GA | |
81 FR 1189 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 1192 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 1187 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 1213 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees, Limited | |
81 FR 1215 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Tracing Center Trace Request, ATF F 3312.1 | |
81 FR 1218 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Limited Permittee Transaction Report (ATF F 5400.4) | |
81 FR 1217 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles, ATF F 6, Part II (5330.3B) | |
81 FR 1222 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: Census of Victim Service Providers (VSP Census) | |
81 FR 1121 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA | |
81 FR 1288 - Notice of Availability of Southwest Light Rail Transit Project Amended Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation | |
81 FR 1197 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
81 FR 1191 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (BSC, NCIPC) | |
81 FR 1179 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Perkins Discretionary Grant Performance Report | |
81 FR 1178 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program: Annual Performance Report | |
81 FR 1286 - Establishment of an Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2016 | |
81 FR 1173 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms | |
81 FR 1257 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7015 | |
81 FR 1255 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Credit Option Margin Pilot Program Through January 17, 2017 | |
81 FR 1260 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan to Add the EDGX Exchange, Inc. as a Participant | |
81 FR 1251 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options To Add EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) as a Plan Sponsor | |
81 FR 1244 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1249 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7014 | |
81 FR 1268 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for Certain CBOE Real-Time Data Feeds | |
81 FR 1238 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Retail Price Improvement Program | |
81 FR 1266 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay of Implementation of Kill Switch | |
81 FR 1261 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Delay of Implementation of Kill Switch | |
81 FR 1252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Describe IPO Auction Viewer | |
81 FR 1240 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Implement Additional Price Protections in the Opening Process | |
81 FR 1245 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories | |
81 FR 1263 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration Categories | |
81 FR 1261 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1200 - Sovereignty in Indian Education | |
81 FR 1187 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension | |
81 FR 1238 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 1225 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; Bioterrorism Preparedness Act: Entity/Individual Information | |
81 FR 1221 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Flash/Cancellation/Transfer Notice (I-12) | |
81 FR 1217 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor (Public Law 107-12) | |
81 FR 1213 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement | |
81 FR 1212 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement With Change of a Previously Approved Collection: Public Safety Officer's Disability Benefits | |
81 FR 1223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement With Change of a Previously Approved Collection: Report of Public Safety Officer's Death | |
81 FR 1224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement With Change of a Previously Approved Collection: Claim for Death Benefits | |
81 FR 1215 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Application for Import Quota for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine DEA Form 488 | |
81 FR 1219 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Application for Procurement Quota for a Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine DEA Form 250 | |
81 FR 1219 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Application for Individual Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class of Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine DEA Form 189 | |
81 FR 1231 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
81 FR 1226 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
81 FR 1176 - National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 1233 - Notice of Intent to Seek Approval to Establish an Information Collection | |
81 FR 1223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Response Team Customer Satisfaction Survey | |
81 FR 1211 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics) | |
81 FR 1221 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Certification of Qualifying State Relief From Disabilities Program | |
81 FR 1220 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Appeals of Background Checks | |
81 FR 1225 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Stolen or Lost ATF Forms 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosive Coupon | |
81 FR 1214 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy | |
81 FR 1211 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application To Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles | |
81 FR 1216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges | |
81 FR 1193 - HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting; March 25, 2016 | |
81 FR 1210 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Chattem Chemicals Inc. | |
81 FR 1210 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC | |
81 FR 1208 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Alltech Associates, Inc. | |
81 FR 1209 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: IRIX Manufacturing, Inc. | |
81 FR 1207 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sharp Clinical Services, Inc. | |
81 FR 1207 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Myoderm | |
81 FR 1208 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Hospira | |
81 FR 1131 - Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, IP-Enabled Services, Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled, Services Providers, Telephone Number Portability et al. | |
81 FR 1244 - Northern Lights Fund Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 1209 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Noramco, Inc. | |
81 FR 1195 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1195 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 1196 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1195 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1177 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Denver Urban Waterways Restoration Study, South Platte River and Tributaries, Denver County, CO | |
81 FR 1176 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Schafer Aerospace; Albuquerque, NM | |
81 FR 1286 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
81 FR 1287 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
81 FR 1182 - Registration Review; Conventional, Biopesticide and Antimicrobial Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment | |
81 FR 1116 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International, HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 0, Revision 1 | |
81 FR 1275 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review | |
81 FR 1136 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
81 FR 1122 - Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP); Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Regards to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)-Prongs 1 and 2 | |
81 FR 1277 - 2016 Special 301 Review: Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment and Announcement of Public Hearing | |
81 FR 1133 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Approval of Infrastructure State Implementation Plans for Specific National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
81 FR 1124 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Nonattainment New Source Review | |
81 FR 1144 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, GA, 1997 Annual PM2.5 | |
81 FR 1127 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
81 FR 1128 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington; Removal of Obsolete Regulations | |
81 FR 1133 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington; Removal of Obsolete Regulations | |
81 FR 1115 - Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards | |
81 FR 1141 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements | |
81 FR 1118 - Schedule of Fees for Access to NOAA Environmental Data, Information, and Related Products and Services; Correction |
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) publishes this rule to adopt as a final rule, with one change, a joint interim final rule published with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all Federal award-making agencies that implemented guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). This rule is necessary to incorporate into regulation and thus bring into effect the Uniform Guidance as required by OMB for the SBA.
This rule is effective February 10, 2016.
William G. Bethel, Director, Office of Grants Management, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416 at (202) 205-7198 or
On December 19, 2014, OMB and SBA issued an interim final rule that implemented for all Federal award-making agencies the final guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) (79 FR 75867, 76080-76081, December 19, 2014). In that interim final rule, Federal awarding agencies, including the SBA, joined together to implement the Uniform Guidance in their respective chapters of title 2 of the CFR, and, where approved by OMB, implemented any exceptions to the Uniform Guidance by including the relevant language in their regulations. Where applicable, agencies provided additional language beyond that included in 2 CFR part 200, consistent with their existing policy, to provide more detail with respect to how they intend to implement the policy, where appropriate.
In addition, the interim final rule made technical corrections to the Uniform Guidance, where needed, to ensure that particular language in the final guidance matched with the Council on Financial Assistance Reform's intent and to avoid any erroneous implementation of the guidance. The interim final rule went into effect on December 26, 2014. The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on February 17, 2015.
The SBA publishes this final rule to adopt the provisions of the interim final rule. The SBA adopted six exceptions to the Uniform Guidance and two implementing provisions, all of which were codified in 2 CFR part 2701. The SBA did not receive any public comments on its regulations. Accordingly, the SBA makes no substantive changes to the interim final rule. However, in order to reflect organizational changes that have occurred at SBA since the publication of the interim final rule and to provide for greater stability during periods of political transition, SBA is in this final rule reallocating responsibility for serving as the Agency's Single Audit Senior Accountable Official from the Chief Administrative Officer to the Deputy Chief Operating Officer.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined this final rule to be not significant.
This rule contains no collections of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant administration, Grant programs.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 2 CFR part 2701 and 13 CFR part 143, which was published at 79 FR 75867 on December 19, 2014, is adopted as a final rule with the following change:
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 2 CFR part 200.
For SBA, the Single Audit Senior Accountable Official is the Deputy Chief Operating Officer. The Single Audit Liaison is the Director, Office of Grants Management.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of April 25, 2016, for the direct final rule that was published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781; email:
On September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58195), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in § 72.214 of Title 10 of the
In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on April 25, 2016. The NRC received public comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule (80 FR 58222). Electronic copies of these comments can be obtained from the Federal Rulemaking Web site,
The NRC received comments on the proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. As explained in the September 28, 2015, direct final rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule only if it received a “significant adverse comment.” This is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
In this instance, the NRC determined that none of the comments submitted on the proposed rule are significant adverse comments. The comments were either beyond the scope of this rulemaking or already addressed by the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15124A644). The NRC has not made any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public comments. However, the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to the comments in an effort to clarify information about the 10 CFR part 72 CoC rulemaking process, and the limited nature of this revision.
For rulemakings amending or revising a CoC, the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the specific changes requested by the applicant in the request for the amendment or revision. Therefore, comments about the system, or spent fuel storage in general that are not applicable to the changes requested by the applicant, are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comments about details of the particular system that is the subject of the rulemaking, but that are not being addressed by the specific changes requested, have already been resolved in prior rulemakings. Persons who have questions or concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final rules may consider the NRC's petition for rulemaking process under 10 CFR 2.802. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on the NRC's public Web site at
The NRC identified the following issues raised in the comments, and the NRC's responses to these issues follow.
Two comments received from one commenter requested the NRC deny this revision request, expressing concern with the thickness of the canisters. The commenter stated that European systems have a more robust design and that NRC should require the same. The commenter expressed concern that the
The comment is out of scope for this revision. It is a general comment recommending that United States' manufacturers utilize some design features used in some European systems. The European systems cited are designed for a different application than dry cask storage systems authorized by 10 CFR 72 Subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.” The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System was evaluated by the NRC staff to acceptably protect the public health and safety on July 14, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111950103). The Revision 1 changes were evaluated by the NRC staff to ensure that the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System will continue to protect the public health and safety. These evaluations were performed in accordance with the NRC's existing part 72 regulations. Requests to revise the underlying part 72 requirements are beyond the scope of this revision request.
Two comments, which read “good”, appeared to indicate support for the rule.
The NRC acknowledges the comments. Because the comments appear to support the rule, the comments are not considered significant adverse comments.
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the vent size, stating that the vents are disproportionately small for such large casks, and poorly located. The commenters also stated that 50% blockage of the vents is unacceptable regardless of temperature, and that, instead, vents should be totally unblocked to be considered operable. The commenters also expressed concern with the protocols for vents that are not operable within 24 hours. The commenters also objected to a perceived inconsistent application of ASME code standards to the CoC.
The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design, including the vent size and location, were evaluated by the NRC staff in the initial approval (ADAMS Accession No. ML111950103). The system was ultimately determined to be acceptable because the applicant demonstrated that the system could maintain the spent nuclear fuel below regulatory limits with up to 50% blockage of the inlet and out vents for an indefinite time as long as the spent fuel storage cask heat removal system remains operable. Although this revision includes clarifying changes to the LCO vent blockage language, there are no changes in this revision that impact the underlying analysis evaluated in the initial approval. Additionally, there is no specific information in the comment that would cause the NRC to reevaluate this analysis. Therefore, this comment is not considered a significant adverse comment.
One commenter requested withdrawal of the revision due to concerns that the environmental assessment (EA) that accompanied the rule was inadequate. The commenter expressed concern that, because the EA for this rule tiered off of an EA performed for the 1990 rulemaking that added the general license for storage of spent fuel at power reactor sites, the EA is outdated. The commenter noted that using an outdated EA raises the question of whether the EA is valid in light of the Fukushima disaster that occurred in Japan on March 11, 2011. In addition to withdrawal of the rule, the commenter also requested that a new environmental impact assessment be commissioned, and that all current projects meet at least the minimum standards employed at Fukushima.
This comment is not a significant adverse comment as it fails to present any specific challenge to the EA performed in support of this rule. As noted in the comment, the NRC performed an EA in support of this revision. That EA tiered off of an earlier EA completed to support changes to the part 72 rule that added the general license provisions, but considered environmental impacts specific to this revision. Both of these EAs concluded with a finding of no significant environmental impact. This comment does not provide any specific environmental information relating to the storage of spent fuel at Fukushima that would invalidate the finding of no significant impact in this EA or the earlier EA or that would cause the NRC to reevaluate the environmental impacts associated with this revision to this CoC. Moreover, the staff is unaware of any information that would challenge the findings made in these EAs.
Comments were also received which neither supported nor opposed the rule, but instead, contained numerous questions about this CoC system and other similar CoC systems. Although these comments are not significant adverse comments, and in many instances fall outside the scope of this specific rulemaking, the NRC is taking this opportunity to attempt to address the questions received.
One commenter asked about temperature values included in the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) page 3.1.2-2. The commenter noted that a previous CoC included one temperature value as 137 degrees F, while this CoC TS identifies it as 139 degrees F, but does not reflect it as a revision. The commenter asked which temperature value is correct and the implication of the temperature difference. The commenter also asked how relevant ambient air temperature is to underground systems such as the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX system.
The temperature addressed in the comment is correctly listed as 139 degrees F which is applicable to CoC 1032, Amendment No. 0. This temperature was changed to 137 degrees F in CoC 1032, Amendment No. 1. The HI-STORM UMAX is a different system from the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System and as such has a different thermal design.
Another commenter requested an explanation as to the vendor's statement in the application regarding additional flexibility associated with the limits to the use of vacuum drying to casks at lower heat loads.
In the application for this revision, the applicant contends that lowering this temperature limit provides additional conservatism (margin) that would allow the applicant the flexibility to implement some changes under the 10 CFR 72.48 process rather than through the amendment process. The NRC staff evaluated the lower temperature limit in its preliminary SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML15124A644), and found the lower limit acceptable.
Finally, there were several questions asked about the relationship between this revision and the HI-STORM UMAX system and/or the implications of the changes proposed here to potential uses at the San Onofre Generating Station
There is no relationship between this revision and the HI-STORM UMAX system. Each system is separately reviewed and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 72. General licensees may use the certified systems identified in 10 CFR 72.214 subject to meeting certain requirements in 10 CFR part 72. Therefore, the changes in this revision are applicable only to the HI-STORM FW MPC system, CoC No. 1032, and are not applicable to the HI-STORM UMAX system that is intended to be used at SONGS. Nothing in this revision impacts anything associated with the HI-STORM UMAX system; therefore, this revision does not impact the thickness of the canisters in the HI-STORM UMAX system, or the placement of the UMAX system. Additionally, although this rule is a revision to the HI-STORM FW MPC system, nothing in this revision impacts the thickness of the canisters in the HI-STORM FW MPC system.
For these reasons, the NRC staff has concluded that the comments received on the companion proposed rule for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 0, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032, are not significant adverse comments as defined in NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461). Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This action corrects the NESDIS FY 2016 schedule of fees for the sale of its data, information, and related products and services to users. NESDIS is authorized under the United States Code to assess fees, up to fair market value, for access to environmental data, information, and products derived from, collected, and/or archived by NOAA. This action corrects one user fee, titled the Department of Commerce Certification. In the October 22, 2015, final rule, the fee was incorrectly listed as $16.00. The correct user fee should be $116.00.
Effective January 11, 2016.
James Lewis (301) 713-7073.
NESDIS operates NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI). Through NCEI, NESDIS provides and ensures timely access to global environmental data from satellites and other sources, provides information services, and develops science products. NESDIS maintains some 1,300 databases containing over 2,400 environmental variables at NCEI and seven World Data Centers. These centers respond to over 2,000,000 requests for these data and products annually from over 70 countries. This collection of environmental data and products is growing rapidly, both in size and sophistication, and as a result the associated costs have increased.
Users have the ability to access the data offline, online and through the NESDIS
In an October 22, 2015, final rule (80 FR 63914), NESDIS established a new schedule of fees for the sale of its data, information, and related products and services to users (“October 2015 Fee Schedule Rule”). NESDIS revised the fee schedule that has been in effect since 2013 to ensure that the fees accurately reflect the costs of providing access to the environmental data, information, and related products and services. The new fee schedule lists both the current fee charged for each item and the new fee to be charged to users that took effect beginning November 23, 2015. The schedule applies to the listed services provided by NESDIS on or after this date, except for products and services covered by a subscription agreement in effect as of this date that extends beyond this date. In those cases, the increased fees will apply upon renewal of the subscription agreement or at the earliest amendment date provided by the agreement.
NESDIS will continue to review the user fees periodically, and will revise such fees as necessary. Any future changes in the user fees and their effective date will be announced through notice in the
The October 2015 Fee Schedule Rule contains one fee—which appears in a table in Appendix A to Part 950—that was reported incorrectly. The Department of Commerce Certification Fee was listed as $16.00. The last rule had the rate incorrectly listed. The correct fee for this service is $116.00. We now are setting out the entire table with the corrected fee to provide clarity for the public.
The correction this action makes is minor and merely updates a typographical error within the original final rule. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment are inapplicable because this rule falls within the public property exception of subparagraph (a)(2) of section 553, as it relates only to the assessment of fees, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1534, that accurately reflect the costs of providing access to publicly available environmental data, information, and related products. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR part 950 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
(5 U.S.C. 552, 553). Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
Office of the Deputy Secretary, HUD.
Final rule.
Through this rule, HUD removes the regulations for its Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grants Program (NHOP). Under NHOP, HUD was authorized to make grants to nonprofit organizations to be used to provide loans to families purchasing homes constructed or substantially renovated in accordance with a HUD-approved program. In 1990, authority for NHOP was repealed by the National Affordable Housing Act. HUD removed obsolete NHOP regulations in 1996 but maintained regulatory provisions deemed necessary for the administration of existing NHOP grants. Currently, HUD administers only one NHOP grant agreement. As a result, HUD has determined that the remaining NHOP regulations are unnecessary. The existing grant and loans made under NHOP will continue to be governed by the regulations that existed immediately before the effective date of this final rule.
Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8389 (this is a toll-free number).
Established under title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-242, approved February 5, 1988) (12 U.S.C. 17151), NHOP authorized HUD to make grants to nonprofit organizations to enable them to provide loans to families purchasing homes constructed or substantially rehabilitated in accordance with a HUD-approved program. Loans provided under NHOP were required to be secured by a second mortgage on the property involved that was held by HUD but that did not bear interest. On July 13, 1989 (54 FR 22248), HUD published regulations implementing NHOP and codified these regulations in part 280 of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Section 289(a) of the National Affordable Housing Act (Pub. L. 101-625, approved November 28, 1990) (42 U.S.C. 12839), however, repealed authority for NHOP. On August 19, 1996 (61 FR 42952), HUD published a final rule removing obsolete sections of 24 CFR part 280, but maintained those provisions deemed necessary to the administration of existing NHOP grants. As of the date of this publication, however, HUD maintains one NHOP grant agreement and has 1,028 active Nehemiah loans. Based on this, HUD has determined that there is no longer a need to maintain 24 CFR part 280. As a result, and consistent with Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, entitled “Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,”
This final rule also removes a cross-reference to 24 CFR part 280 that is codified in HUD's Community Development Block Grant regulations, 24 CFR part 570.
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. (See 24 CFR 10.1.)
HUD finds that public notice and comment are not necessary for this rulemaking because the authority to provide assistance under NHOP has been repealed and assistance is no longer being provided under the program. Therefore, the regulations being removed by this final rule are no longer operative. For these reasons, HUD has determined that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of this rule in order to solicit prior public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule will not have federalism
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Community development, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community development block grants, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD amends 24 CFR parts 200, 280 and 570 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(h) Any existing loan assistance (including recapture of loan assistance), ongoing participation, or insured loans under the program listed in this paragraph will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before February 10, 2016 (24 CFR part 280, 2015 Edition):
(1) Part 280, Mortgage Insurance and Assistance Payments for Home Ownership and Project Rehabilitation (12 U.S.C. 17151).
(2) [Reserved]
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.
(j) Construction of housing by non-profit organizations for homeownership under section 17(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Housing Development Grants Program, 24 CFR part 850).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 90 (Danziger) vertical lift span drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 3.10 at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to conduct field measurements and other preparations for repairs and maintenance that are scheduled for later in the year. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for nine days. During this closure, the bridge will open with at least four hours notice except during scheduled curfew times.
This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on January 22, 2016, until 7 p.m. on January 31, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1119] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The Contractor, C.E.C., Inc., for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the US 90 (Danziger) vertical lift span drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 3.10 at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation was requested for the purpose of conducting field measurements and other preparations for repairs and maintenance that are scheduled for later in the year. The vertical clearance of the vertical lift span bridge is 50 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 120 feet in the open-to-navigation position. The bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.458(b).
This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on January 22, 2016, until 7 p.m. on January 31, 2016. This deviation allows
Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with and without tows, commercial vessels, and recreational craft, including sailboats.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone (O
This final rule is effective on February 10, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0710. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mr. Gregory Crable, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
On November 16, 2015 (80 FR 70721), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Nebraska. The NPR proposed approval of Nebraska's submission that provides the basic elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, or portions thereof, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 O
On February 11, 2013, EPA received a SIP submission from the state of Nebraska that addressed the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 O
EPA is approving Nebraska's February 11, 2013, submission addressing the requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 O
Under the CAA the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to EPA on May 2, 2011. The SIP revision modifies Alabama's nonattainment new source review (NNSR) regulations in their entirety to be consistent with the federal new source review (NSR) regulations for the implementation of the criteria pollutant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving portions of the NNSR rule changes in Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision because the Agency has determined that the changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and federal regulations regarding NNSR permitting.
This rule will be effective February 10, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0079. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information regarding the Alabama SIP, contact Mr. D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at
EPA is taking final action to approve the portion of Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP revision that makes changes to Alabama's NNSR program, set forth at ADEM Administrative Code, Division 3, Chapter 14, Subchapter .05 (ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05), which applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source in or near a nonattainment area (NAA) as required by part D of title I of the CAA. Alabama's NNSR regulations at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05 were originally approved into the SIP on November 26, 1979 (
EPA is not, however, approving into the Alabama SIP the portion of ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05(1)(k) stating “excluding ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation,” which Alabama promulgated pursuant to the federal rule entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition,” Final Rule, 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007) (or the Ethanol Rule).
On September 1, 2015, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve the aforementioned changes to the Alabama NNSR program at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05.
Alabama currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and modified stationary sources found in ADEM regulations at Chapter 335-3-14. ADEM's NNSR preconstruction regulations are found at Chapter 335-3-14-.05 and apply to major stationary sources or modifications constructed in or impacting upon a nonattainment area as required under part D of title I of the CAA with respect to the NAAQS. The changes to Chapter 335-3-14-.05 that EPA is now approving into the SIP were provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the current federal NNSR rules, including the WEPCO Rule, 2002 NSR Reform Rule (and associated Reconsideration Rule and Vacated Elements Rule), Phase 2 Rule, NSR PM
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of portions of ADEM Regulation Chapter 335-3-14-.05 entitled “Air Permits Authorizing Construction in or Near Non-Attainment Areas,” effective May 23, 2011, with revisions and additions to applicability, definitions, permitting requirements, offset rules, area classifications, air quality models, control technology review, air quality monitoring, source information, source obligation, innovative control technology, and actuals plantwide applicability limits, and with administrative changes throughout. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of Alabama's May 2, 2011, submission that make changes to Alabama's SIP-approved NNSR regulations set forth at ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.05, with the exceptions noted above. ADEM submitted the proposed changes to its NNSR SIP to be consistent with amendments to the federal regulations made by the WEPCO Rule, the 2002 NSR Reform Rule (and associated Reconsideration Rule and Vacated Elements Rule), Phase 2 Rule, NSR PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Texas for the Sulfur Dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on February 10, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0388. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nevine Salem, 214-665-7222,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our October 6, 2015 proposal (80 FR 60314). In that document, we proposed to approve portions of the SIP submittal from the State of Texas adopted on April 23, 2013, and submitted on May 6, 2013. The submittal addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2010 SO
EPA is approving portions of the May 6, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from Texas, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to remove outdated rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the State of Washington because they are unnecessary or obsolete. The EPA is also clarifying regulations to reflect updated citations and more recent air quality monitoring data. This direct final action makes no substantive changes to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and imposes no new requirements.
This rule is effective on March 11, 2016, without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by February 10, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0813, at
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, (206) 553-0256,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
This action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 13563—
The EPA reviewed the following regulations and found that they should be removed or revised for the reasons set forth as follows:
In a submission received on September 22, 2014, included in the docket for this action, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed air quality monitoring data for nitrogen dioxide (NO
The EPA also reviewed air quality monitoring data for carbon monoxide. Concentrations of carbon monoxide in ambient air have plummeted in the thirty-five years since the EPA's last update to the classifications in § 52.2471, primarily due to improved Federal engine standards for motor vehicles. The highest 8-hour concentration observed at all monitors in Washington from 2013-2015 was 2.4 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the 8-hour carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 9 ppm and well below the Priority I classification level of 12 ppm. Similarly, the highest 1-hour concentration observed at all monitors in Washington from 2013-2015 was 4 ppm, which is well below the 1-hour carbon monoxide NAAQS of 35 ppm and well below the Priority I classification level of 48 ppm. The EPA is therefore reclassifying all carbon monoxide areas in Washington as Priority III, the lowest classification level. As discussed above, this update to the classification levels will have no significant impact on the SIP because the current emergency episode plan covering the entire state remains unchanged in the SIP since the EPA's last approval. At this time, we are not assessing the classification levels for other pollutants (particulate matter and sulfur dioxide) because the data analysis required to do so, including consideration of any potential exceptional events, is beyond the scope of this action.
This section extended the attainment date for the Spokane and Wallula particulate matter (PM
This section, last updated February 23, 1982 (47 FR 7840), is out of date. The second sentence addresses the geographic applicability of the regulations in the Washington SIP. Applicability is now addressed in the tables in § 52.2470, and this sentence is out of date and is being removed (see 79 FR 59653, October 3, 2014). The fourth sentence describes ozone-related reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA). This sentence is being removed because the EPA subsequently approved Washington SIP revisions for the ozone NAAQS under the requirements of the 1990 CAA (see 40 CFR 52.2470(c) and (e)). Similarly, the fifth sentence in this section is also out of date and is being removed. It describes the requirements of the emission offset interpretive rule as it applies to permitting new sources in a nonattainment area, published January 16, 1979 (44 FR 3274). This concern became obsolete when the EPA approved Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-091 “Voluntary limits on emissions” and WAC 173-400-112 “Requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas” (60 FR 28726, June 2, 1995). More recently, the EPA approved updates to Washington's nonattainment new source review permitting program as meeting all CAA requirements on November 7, 2014 (79 FR 59653).
This section, addressing public availability of emission data, is out of date (40 FR 55334, November 28, 1975), and is being removed. On October 3, 2014, the EPA approved WAC 173-400-175 “Public Information” as meeting the requirements of the CAA, including making ambient air quality data and emission data available to the public (79 FR 59653). For a full discussion, please see the proposed approval of WAC 173-400-175 (79 FR 39351, 39357, July 10, 2014).
This section is no longer necessary because the EPA replaced the historical information contained in this section with summary tables in § 52.2470 (78 FR 17108, March 20, 2013). These summary tables describe the regulations, source-specific actions, and non-regulatory requirements which comprise the SIP, including a history of attainment plan and visibility protection SIP submittals. The EPA reviewed § 52.2475 to verify that all relevant historical information in this section is contained in § 52.2470. The EPA is therefore removing § 52.2475.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 52.2477, originally designated as 40 CFR 52.2470(b) and (c), contain historical information about the EPA's approval actions for the Washington SIP which occurred from January 28, 1972 until March 20, 2013. On March 20, 2013, the EPA reorganized the Identification of plan section (§ 52.2470) for subpart WW by listing and summarizing Washington's currently approved SIP requirements in § 52.2470(a) through (e) (78 FR 17110). Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 52.2477 are being removed because the EPA has determined that it is no longer necessary to codify the information found in these paragraphs. Paragraph (a) of § 52.2477 is being amended to state that this historical information will continue to be made available in the CFR annual editions, title 40, part 52 (years 1996 through 2012). These annual editions are available on line at the following url address:
This section discusses the mechanisms for issuance of voluntary limits on potential to emit in Washington. In 1995, the EPA approved this regulation (with a state effective date of September 20, 1993) as meeting the requirements for Federally-enforceable state operating permit programs set forth in 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989), with respect to criteria pollutants and pollutants regulated under the PSD program under section 110 of the CAA (as part of the SIP) and with respect to hazardous air pollutants under section 112(l) of the CAA (as part of Ecology's CAA section 112 program and not as part of the SIP). See 60 FR 9805 (proposed action); 60 FR 28726 (final action). Subsequent to that approval, Ecology made minor changes to WAC 173-400-091. The EPA approved these minor changes to the Washington SIP in 2014 with respect to criteria pollutants and pollutants regulated under the PSD program (referred to as “regulated NSR pollutants”). See 79 FR 39351, 39354 (July 10, 2014) (proposed action); 79 FR 59653 (final action). The 1993 version of WAC 173-400-091 continues to be the approved version for purposes of section 112(l). The EPA is amending § 52.2495 to make it clear that WAC 173-400-091 remains approved under both sections 110 and 112(l) of the CAA, and that the SIP-approved version is identified in § 52.2470(c). The EPA is also deleting the reference in § 52.2495 to 40 CFR 51.104(e) because that paragraph has been repealed.
The EPA has determined that the above referenced rules should be removed or revised at this time. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 11, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporate by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The Washington plan was evaluated on the basis of the following classifications:
With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Washington's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all requirements of part D, title 1, of the Clean Air Act.
(a) This section identified the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Washington” and all revisions submitted by Washington that were Federally approved prior to March 20, 2013. The information in this section is available in the 40 CFR, part 52, Volume 3 of 3 (§§ 52.2020 to End) edition revised as of July 1, 2012.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) [Reserved]
(a) Terms and conditions of regulatory orders covering regulated NSR pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)), issued pursuant to WAC 173-400-091 “Voluntary limits on emissions” and in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-400-091, WAC 173-400-105 “Records, monitoring, and reporting,” and WAC 173-400-171 “Public involvement,” shall be applicable requirements of the Federally-approved Washington SIP for the purposes of section 113 of the Clean Air Act and shall be enforceable by EPA and by any person in the same manner as other requirements of the SIP. Such regulatory orders issued pursuant to WAC 173-400-091 are part of the Washington SIP and shall be submitted to EPA Region 10 in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.326. The EPA-approved provisions of the WAC are identified in 40 CFR 52.2470(c).
(b) Terms and conditions of regulatory orders covering hazardous air pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2), issued pursuant to WAC 173-400-091 “Voluntary limits on emissions,” as in effect on September 20, 1993, and in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-400-091, WAC 173-400-105 “Records, monitoring, and reporting,” and WAC 173-400-171 “Public involvement,” shall be applicable requirements of the Federally-approved Washington section 112(l) program for the purposes of section 113 of the Clean Air Act and shall be enforceable by EPA and by any person in the same manner as other requirements of section 112.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction
The Commission published in the
Effective January 11, 2016,
Marilyn Jones, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division,
The Commission published a document in the
In Final rule FR Doc. 2015-20900 published on October 29, 2015, (80 FR 66477), make the following correction. On page 66477, in the third column, paragraph 2 in § 52.5, remove the title “Central office code administration” and revise it to read “Definitions”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove outdated rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the State of Washington because they are unnecessary or obsolete. The EPA is also proposing to clarify regulations to reflect updated citations and more recent air quality monitoring data. These proposed actions make no substantive changes to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and impose no new requirements. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0813, at
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, (206) 553-0256,
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) for the State of West Virginia on June 3, 2015.
This revision pertains to West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program regulations for preconstruction permitting requirements for major sources. The revision includes a change in West Virginia's PSD regulations related to emissions of fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0539 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Mr. Paul Wentworth, (215) 814-2183, or by email at
The WVDEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA on June 3, 2015. This SIP revision request, if approved, would revise West Virginia's currently-approved PSD program by amending Series 14 under Title 45 of West Virginia Code of State Rules (45CSR14). West Virginia is amending 45CSR14 in response to changes EPA made to the NAAQS for PM
On May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated a rule to implement the 1997 PM
In an earlier rulemaking action, EPA granted final condition approval of revisions to 45CSR14 made by West Virginia to address requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.166 and the 2008 NSR PM
In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve several of West Virginia's infrastructure SIPs as meeting PSD elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 ozone and PM
The SIP revision submitted by WVDEP on June 3, 2015 pertains to revisions to its PSD permit program regulations at 45CSR14-16.7.c that establish a SMC value of zero micrograms per cubic meter for PM
EPA finds the revisions to 45CSR14 contained in the June 3, 2015 submittal are consistent with the federal PSD program in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(
Because this submission fulfills the commitment made by West Virginia in the final conditional approval of West Virginia's earlier submittals of revisions to 45CSR14 (
Similarly, because West Virginia's regulations at 45CSR14 fully meet the federal requirements for PSD in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.166 as discussed in the WV PSD TSD, EPA also finds that West Virginia's PSD program addresses specific PSD-related portions of infrastructure program elements in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 ozone and PM
EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's June 3, 2015 SIP submittal containing revised PSD permit program implementation regulations at 45CSR14. In a previous rulemaking action, EPA evaluated 45CSR14 and found the provisions are consistent with the federal PSD permit program requirements at 40 CFR 51.166 with the exception of West Virginia's omission of a PM
In this proposed action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the West Virginia regulations at 45CSR14 regarding the PSD permitting requirements as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, relating to West Virginia's PSD program and to several West Virginia infrastructure SIPs, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania). This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's attainment plan for the North Reading nonattainment area (“North Reading Area” or “Area”) for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and includes a base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology (RACT)), a plan for reasonable further progress (RFP), a modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, and contingency measures. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
On August 12, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading Area. Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan for the Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, an analysis of RACM, RACT, and RFP, and contingency measures. The attainment plan includes portions of two Consent Order and Agreements (COA) between PADEP and Exide Technologies (Exide) and Yuasa Battery, Inc. (Yuasa) which demonstrate how Pennsylvania will achieve and maintain compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The lead attainment plan specifically includes paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015, and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP, dated June 12, 2015.
EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the North Reading Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the North Reading Area and paragraphs 3, 5, and 22, respectively, of the COAs between PADEP and Exide and Yuasa, as submitted on August 12, 2015.
EPA's analysis and findings are discussed for each applicable requirement in this rulemaking action. The three Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for this proposed action contain additional details on the base year inventory, modeling, control strategies, RFP, and contingency measures of the attainment demonstration. Copies of these TSDs can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
The North Reading attainment plan assesses lead emissions within the Area. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products. Human exposure to lead can cause a variety of adverse health effects, especially in children.
Lead is emitted into the air from many sources, encompassing a wide variety of stationary and mobile source types. In the United States, there has been a decrease in the emissions of lead from mobile sources, resulting from the reduction of lead additives to fuel. Most of the lead emissions in the North Reading Area come from permitted stationary sources within the Area.
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
The designation of the North Reading Area as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of the CAA, requiring Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.
On August 12, 2015, in accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, Pennsylvania submitted an attainment plan for the North Reading Area which includes a base year emissions inventory, an attainment demonstration, an analysis of RACM and RACT, provisions for RFP, and contingency measures. The SIP revision also includes paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of these elements for the North Reading Area.
As part of the promulgation of the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA revised the air monitoring requirements for lead. In accordance with the revised monitoring requirements, air monitors near sources in Pennsylvania that emit one ton per year (tpy) or more were in place by January 2010. The monitoring requirements for lead were further revised on December 27, 2010, when EPA lowered the monitoring requirement for stationary sources down to those that emit 0.5 tpy of lead among other changes.
Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network consists of lead monitors that have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent monitors and are subject to the federal quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. All samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E.
PADEP currently operates two ambient air monitors in the North Reading Area. The Laureldale South monitor has been in place since 1976 and the Laureldale North monitor since January 1, 2010.
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state to submit a SIP that includes a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant” in the nonattainment area. In the 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking on November 12, 2008, EPA finalized guidance related to the emissions inventories requirements for lead.
For the base year inventory of actual lead emissions for CAA 172(c)(3), EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year, but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states can show another year is more appropriate. Additionally, EPA guidance provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base year inventory.
For the nonpoint sources of lead emissions, PADEP submitted EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the 2010 inventory. The nonpoint source values for the North Reading Area were calculated using Berks County data apportioned by population.
EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for Pennsylvania's submission and found them to be reasonable for calculating the lead base year inventory for section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117(e). A more detailed description of the PADEP's use and calculation of inventories as well as EPA's analysis of PADEP's base inventory for CAA requirements is included in the TSD prepared in support of this proposed rulemaking action. A copy of the Base Inventory TSD can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA and the lead SIP regulations found at 40 CFR 51.117 require states to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling for the demonstration of attainment of the lead NAAQS for areas in the vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. All these requirements comprise the “attainment plan” that is required for lead nonattainment areas.
As part of a state's attainment plan, 40 CFR 51.117(a) provides that states must include an analysis showing that the SIP will attain and maintain the standard in areas in the vicinity of certain point sources that are emitting significant emissions of lead and also in “[a]ny other area that has lead air concentrations in excess of the national ambient air quality standard concentration.” These sources include primary and secondary lead smelters, primary copper smelters, lead gasoline additive plants, lead-acid storage battery
In its SIP submittal, Pennsylvania identified one facility as having the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead in the North Reading Area. This facility, Exide Technologies, a secondary lead smelter, was included in PADEP's modeling analysis. Yuasa, a lead-acid battery assembly plant located across the street from Exide, was also included in the modeling analysis. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources and mobile sources were also examined but found to be insignificant and while included in PADEP's lead inventory, they were not included in the lead modeling demonstration due to their insignificance.
In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, PADEP completed an air-dispersion modeling analysis for base year and future year emission inventories representing Exide and Yuasa, with reported lead emissions in 2010 and projected emissions for 2015. The 2015 lead emissions were used in the modeled attainment demonstration to determine if projected lead emission rates would comply with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2015 lead emissions for Exide and Yuasa were determined by incorporating emission reductions from the implementation of the control measures set forth in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting sources (Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP) and from the stack-specific emission limits identified in the COAs between Pennsylvania and Exide and Yuasa.
EPA has found that PADEP's modeling demonstration was done in accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 and the modeling indicates that the Area will meet the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Because the Area had monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS in January 2013, before Exide began idling, the Area will not attain the NAAQS by December 2015 (the Area's attainment date pursuant to section 192 of the CAA) based on ambient air quality over 36 consecutive 3-month periods. However, there have been no monthly periods which have exceeded 0.15 µg/m
The projected 2015 emissions inventory used the maximum allowable lead emissions for both Exide and Yuasa. While Exide is currently idling, it has not installed all of the control measures necessary for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP and its Plan Approval No. 06-05066I. However, pursuant to the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania, Exide cannot resume operations at the facility without demonstrating compliance with the control measures specified in the Plan Approval No. 06-05066I and in its COA. The future year maximum allowable lead emissions were developed from the control measures included in Pennsylvania's attainment plan. However, even if Exide's operations remain idled and controls not installed until it resumes operations, its potential lead emissions while idling will continue to be less than if it were operating under the NESHAP and COA controls and limits.
EPA has evaluated the information provided in the Commonwealth's attainment plan for the North Reading Area and concludes that the Commonwealth's model attainment demonstration shows current lead control and emission limits will provide for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS and the modeling meets the requirements in the CAA and its implementing regulations.
More detailed information on the modeling system tools and documents used for the model attainment demonstration for the Area and EPA's analysis of PADEP's modeling can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM), in Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 submittal, and in the EPA's Modeling TSD which can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
According to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.112, Demonstration of Adequacy, attainment plans shall provide for RACM and RACT and must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.
In order to bring the North Reading Area into attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS, Pennsylvania developed and modeled a control strategy for emissions from stacks at stationary sources and fugitive emissions from stationary sources from the two point sources of lead in the nonattainment area. Section IV of Pennsylvania's attainment plan SIP revision details the control measures and emission limits for the North Reading Area.
Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, attainment plans must provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for each nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires RACM and emission reductions from sources through RACT to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, “Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions” (RACM Guidance).
In the final rule for the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA recommended that at least all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or
Exide's RACT analysis is located in appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's SIP revision. The control measures the PADEP implemented as RACT for Exide include a variety of control measures for the attainment plan which also address requirements in the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
A descriptive list of the measures which Exide must implement are included in table 9 of PADEP's SIP revision. EPA's review and analysis of Pennsylvania's RACT proposal for Exide can be found in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the controls for lead emissions at Exide constitute RACM/RACT because PADEP conducted a reasonable analysis of controls that are technically and economically feasible and set the lowest achievable limits given those controls in accordance with the CAA requirements. By approving these control measures as RACM/RACT for Exide for purposes of the North Reading attainment plan, these control measures will become permanent and federally enforceable and will meet the requirements of the CAA and the 2008 lead NAAQS.
In addition to the RACT analysis performed for Exide, Pennsylvania evaluated other sources and actions that could contribute meaningful emission reductions for RACM. In order to establish further enforceable controls as RACM to reduce lead emissions from lead point sources and fugitive lead sources, the Commonwealth developed and entered into two separate COAs, one COA with Exide and one COA with Yuasa. These COAs are located within the Pennsylvania attainment SIP revision in appendices C-1 and C-2 and, upon EPA approval of Pennsylvania's submittal, the portions of these COAs submitted for the SIP will become federally enforceable.
According to PADEP, the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air dispersion modeling to reduce Exide's lead emission contributions to the North Reading Area. Also in the COA are emission limits that are to be included in the Commonwealth's SIP as limiting factors for lead emissions control from the lead emitting stacks at the Exide facility. The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Exide to 0.02479667 grams of lead per second (g/s).
However, Exide has been in an idling state since February 2013, and as a result its lead emissions have been reduced dramatically. Exide submitted to PADEP a deactivation cover letter and Maintenance and Activation Plan on January 31, 2014, which indicated that only two lead-emitting sources remain active during the facility's idling state. Source 131 Lime Storage Bin and Source 132 Plant Roadways continue to operate under the controls currently identified in the facility's Title V operating permit. In 2014, under this idled state, Exide emitted a total of 0.00004 tpy of lead, reflecting significant reductions from its prior lead emissions due to idling.
Included in the COA between Pennsylvania and Exide is the requirement that Exide shall not resume operation of any portion of the facility until Exide has completed all of the modification work specified in Exide's Plan Approval No. 06-05066I, which includes all requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
According to PADEP's attainment plan, the COA between Yuasa and Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air dispersion modeling to reduce Yuasa's contribution to lead emissions in the North Reading Area. The COA with Yuasa includes emission limits as well as requirements for stack testing, recordkeeping, monitoring, and progress reports. The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Yuasa to 0.002279522 g/s, to which Yuasa must adhere by December 31, 2015. Yuasa must demonstrate compliance with these limits, via reference method stack testing, by no later than June 30, 2016.
Upon EPA final approval of the Pennsylvania lead attainment plan SIP revision for the North Reading Area, the limits and measures (in paragraph 3 for Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 for Yuasa) within the COAs for Exide and Yuasa will become federally enforceable. EPA finds the measures contained in the COAs for Yuasa and Exide provide for implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable to provide for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in accordance with the requirements in section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and its implementing regulations. Further details of EPA's review of the RACM for Yuasa and Exide is provided in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
In accordance with section 172(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment plans must also provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by Title I, Part D of the CAA, or emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.
In its August 12, 2015 submittal, PADEP presented the COAs with Exide and Yuasa as providing for RFP. Overall, EPA finds that the control strategies for both Exide and Yuasa will provide for immediate reductions in lead emissions in the Area. Yuasa's reductions will be implemented by December 2015. Although Exide's reductions in lead from the control strategies in the COA have not been implemented yet, the plant has no lead smelting in operation and thus reductions in lead have already occurred. While the lead emissions reductions are not staggered or phased and therefore the ambient air quality concentrations are not expected to decrease over a long period of time, the lead reductions have already most notably occurred after Exide began its idling state in February 2013. Since shortly after Exide began idling, all of the North Reading Area's ambient air monitors have been reporting 3-month rolling averages well below the 2008 lead NAAQS. As ambient air quality concentrations have dropped, and have remained, below 0.15 µg/m
As provided in the COA between Exide and PADEP, if Exide seeks to resume its lead smelting operations at its facility, Exide would first need to
In summary, EPA finds the Pennsylvania attainment plan for North Reading Area meets CAA requirements in section 172 of the CAA for RACM/RACT and RFP. Further EPA analysis and reasoning supporting EPA's conclusion is available in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
As required by section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, an attainment demonstration must include contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the nonattainment area in question has failed to make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date in December 2015. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet it attainment date. Contingency measures should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. In addition, these measures should not already be included in the SIP control strategy for attaining the standard.
For the North Reading Area attainment plan, Pennsylvania's SIP submission provides that if the air quality data for any 3-month rolling period after the implementation of the control measures identified in the COAs and Plan Approval No. 06-05066I exceed the 0.15 µg/m
The COA between Pennsylvania and Exide includes for contingency measures: Upgrade of existing fugitive dust control devices; increase existing lead emission stack heights; increased frequency of plant roadway surface cleaning; and an investigative study.
EPA finds these contingency measure triggers and actions will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS and meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
EPA's review of Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 SIP revision for the attainment plan for the North Reading Area satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's final 2008 lead NAAQS rule and in section 172 of the CAA and its implementation regulations.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule regarding PADEP's lead attainment plan for the North Reading Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Lead.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are now inconsistent with federal laws due to intervening decisions by the United States Courts and EPA rulemaking. This submittal establishes Minor New Source Review permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG above applicable levels. Additionally, we are proposing to disapprove severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO
Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783, at
Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma permitting programs for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including new Minor New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements for GHG emissions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC 252:100-8-31 (the definition of “subject to regulation”) to require PSD permits for sources solely because of GHG emissions. In addition, the submittal included many other updates to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG permitting, which the EPA is addressing in separate actions. However, today's action only addresses the provisions for GHG permitting that are inconsistent with federal laws.
On November 6, 2012, Arkansas submitted revisions to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's Regulations, Chapters 2, 4 and 9 for approval by the EPA into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our approval of the submitted revisions to the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation 19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of Arkansas with the authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG emissions on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The EPA finalized approval of the other parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015, with the exception of the severable components of the submittal at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the severable portion of the definition of “CO
On January 8, 2013, New Mexico submitted regulations specific to the New Mexico PSD permitting program for approval by the EPA into the New Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval of a portion of this submittal pertaining to plantwide applicability limits for GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 75253. The submittal also included revisions to the PSD permitting provisions that were adopted on January 7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the application of the PSD requirements to CO
On January 18, 2013, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma regulations for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP that included provisions in the general definitions at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31 to defer the application of the PSD requirements to biogenic CO
On February 6, 2012, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted a revision to the Oklahoma SIP that included, among other things, provisions to regulate the emissions of GHGs in construction permitting programs. The revisions to the Oklahoma Minor Source Permitting Program at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 establish a mechanism for sources in Oklahoma to take enforceable emissions limitations on GHGs to avoid becoming a major source for GHG emissions under the Oklahoma PSD program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC 252:100-8-31 adopted a new definition of “subject to regulation” to identify when emissions of GHGs would be regulated under the PSD program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program submitted were consistent with the EPA's June 3, 2010, final rule “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” (75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to as the “Tailoring Rule”).
The Tailoring Rule phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if they were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA applied to some sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations. We generally describe the sources covered by PSD during Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as “Step 2 sources.”
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. With respect to Step 2 sources, the DC Circuit's amended judgment ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.”
The EPA promulgated a final rule on August 19, 2015, removing the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources from the federal regulations that the DC Circuit specifically identified as vacated (40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Consistent with our August 19, 2015 final rule, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted revisions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 that pertain to the minor source permitting of GHGs and the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources.
On July 20, 2011, the EPA finalized a rulemaking entitled “Deferral for CO
Our analysis, available in our Technical Support Document in the rulemaking docket, finds that the States of Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma each adopted and submitted as revisions to their respective SIPs, provisions that were substantively consistent with the requirements of the EPA's now-expired Biomass Deferral. However, because the deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and the court issued its mandate, these provisions are no longer available for use under federal PSD regulations and should not be approved into a state's PSD SIP. For that reason, we are proposing to disapprove these provisions.
The EPA has an obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act on submitted SIP revisions unless these revisions are withdrawn by the State. Because these provisions have not yet been withdrawn from our consideration, the EPA has a duty to act on the
We are proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal establishing GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and Step 2 PSD sources. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that these revisions to the Oklahoma SIP should be disapproved because they establish permitting requirements that are inconsistent with federal laws. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the following revisions:
• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and
• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012.
We are also proposing to disapprove severable portions of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that include the Biomass Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma PSD programs. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that these revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be disapproved because the Biomass Deferral has expired and adoption or implementation of these provisions is no longer consistent with federal regulations for PSD permitting. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the following revisions:
• Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of “CO
• Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of “Subject to Regulation” at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(
• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and “subject to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 as submitted on January 18, 2013.
The EPA is proposing to disapprove the revisions listed because the submitted provisions are no longer consistent with federal laws. There will be no sanctions or punitive measures taken as a result of our finalization of this proposed disapproval.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On August 30, 2012, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia, fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0084, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Joel Huey, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Joel Huey may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to take the following three separate but related actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To determine that the Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM
EPA is making the preliminary determination that the Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM
EPA also proposes to determine that the Atlanta Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of the Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton, and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties in Georgia from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the 2024 NO
In summary, today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Georgia's August 30, 2012, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM
On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated the Atlanta Area as nonattainment for the 1997 PM
All 1997 PM
The 3-year ambient air quality data for 2008-2010 indicated no violations of the 1997 PM
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and the Agency supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);
2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and
3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
On August 30, 2012, the State of Georgia, through the GA EPD, requested that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in today's action to: (1) Make the determination that the Atlanta Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For PM
On December 8, 2011, EPA determined that the Atlanta Area was attaining the 1997 Annual PM
As shown in Table 1 below, the monitors in the Atlanta Area that have collected complete data since 2010 all have three-year average PM
The most recent data indicate the Atlanta Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Georgia has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Atlanta Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and that the Georgia SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to 1997 Annual PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (
In any event, on October 25, 2012, EPA approved all infrastructure SIP elements required under section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 Annual PM
EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.
Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Atlanta Area, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission for approval a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On March 1, 2012, EPA approved Georgia's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Atlanta Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Georgia has demonstrated that the Atlanta Area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Georgia need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the redesignation request. Georgia's PSD program will become effective in the Atlanta Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the Georgia SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Atlanta Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved the applicable Georgia SIP for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 Annual PM
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Georgia has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Atlanta Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and Federal measures.
Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in particulate matter and its precursors. Most of these emission reductions are enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory measures also result in emission reductions. The Federal measures that have been implemented include:
In 2007 the State promulgated Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)—“Multipollutant Rule” (Rule (sss)) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(uuu)—“SO
In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR,
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
Although the State identified CAIR as a permanent and enforceable measure that contributed to attainment of the 1997 PM
In its redesignation request, Georgia noted that a number of states significantly contributed to PM
Regarding the impact of SO
EPA proposes to agree with this analysis and believes that adding the 0.6 µg/m
First, as discussed above, EPA proposes to agree with the State's sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the Area would have attained the 1997
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, GA EPD must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future 1997 Annual PM
As noted earlier, EPA has previously determined that the Atlanta Area attained the 1997 Annual PM
The emissions inventories are composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. With the exception of on-road emissions, Georgia obtained the 2008 base-year emissions inventory from the National Emissions Inventory 2008 Version 1.5 (
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the Area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of ten years following redesignation.” Calcagni Memorandum, p. 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, the purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail below, Georgia's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the Area's overall emissions inventories will remain well below the attainment year inventories through 2024. Although the State's maintenance demonstration includes projected emissions reductions from Georgia Rules (sss) and (uuu), EPA believes the plan still demonstrates maintenance as discussed in the following subsection.
In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 Annual PM
The August 30, 2012, submittal includes a maintenance demonstration for the Atlanta Area through 2024. This demonstration uses 2008 as the attainment year; identifies 2024 as the “out year;” and includes future emission inventory projections for point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile sources in the Atlanta Area for 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2024 (see Tables 3-7, below). The emissions projections for 2014 and 2020 provide reference points for periodic assessment of maintenance of the NAAQS and were estimated using 2008 actuals and 2017 and 2024 projections. Appendix C of Georgia's 2012 submittal describes the methodology used by the State to prepare the actual and projected emissions inventories.
The future emissions inventory projections in the State's maintenance demonstration include reductions from the implementation of Georgia Rules (sss) and (uuu). However, as discussed above, these two State rules are not permanent and enforceable measures for the purposes of redesignation. EPA therefore recalculated the projected 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2024 point source emissions in the Atlanta Area by removing projected Rule (sss) and Rule (uuu) NO
EPA removed the emissions reductions attributed to Georgia Rules (sss) and (uuu) from the State's emissions projections by assuming that NO
.
Table 3.1 shows the 2008 actual point source emissions and the projected future year point source emissions in the Atlanta Area provided by the State in its 2012 submittal. Table 3.2 shows the 2008 actual point source emissions and projected future year point source emissions using EPA's EGU projections shown in Table 2.2, above.
Tables 4 through 6 show the actual and projected non-point, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile source emissions for the Atlanta Area as provided in the State's 2012 submittal. These emissions are not impacted by Rules (sss) and (uuu) because these rules only apply to certain EGUs.
Below, Table 7.1 shows the 2008 actual emissions from all source sectors and the projected future year emissions from all source sectors in the Atlanta Area provided by the State. Table 7.2 reflects EPA's revisions to the point-source emissions projections shown in Table 3.2, above.
The results
As shown in Table 7.2, EPA projects that SO
Because the relationship between pollutant emissions and ambient air quality is different for each of the three pollutants, the changes in emissions for each pollutant must be weighted according to the air quality impact of each pollutant. To evaluate this relationship, the State examined speciation data available from the EPA Air Explorer Web site for 2007-2009 for the DeKalb County monitor (13-089-0002). The 3-year average of this data suggests that ambient PM
A conservative approach assumes the full ambient concentration of organic particulate matter plus miscellaneous inorganic particulate matter will vary in accordance with changes in total nonattainment area emissions of direct PM
A maintenance plan requires the state to show that projected future year overall emissions will not exceed the level of emissions which led the Area to attain the NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the projected emissions demonstrate that the Atlanta Area will continue to attain for the duration of the maintenance plan.
While GA EPD's maintenance plan projects maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM
There are currently seven monitors measuring ambient PM
The State of Georgia, through the GA EPD, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the Atlanta Area 1997 Annual PM
GA EPD will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of triennial emission inventories for the Atlanta Area as required in the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For these periodic inventories, GA EPD will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially, then GA EPD will re-project emissions for the Atlanta Area.
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the State. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency measures included in Georgia's maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area include a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. GA EPD will use actual ambient monitoring data to determine whether a trigger event has occurred and when contingency measures should be implemented. Georgia's trigger mechanisms include two tiers: Tier I and Tier II.
A Tier I trigger is activated when any of the following conditions occurs:
• The previous calendar year's annual average PM
• The annual mean PM
• The total maintenance area SO
• The total maintenance area PM
A Tier II trigger is activated when any violation of the 1997 Annual PM
In the event of either a Tier I or Tier II trigger, GA EPD will conduct a comprehensive study as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than nine months after the trigger is activated. GA EPD will evaluate a Tier I condition, if it occurs, to determine the causes of the ambient PM
GA EPD will implement any required measures as expeditiously as practicable, taking into consideration the ease of implementation and the technical and economic feasibility of selected measures. Previously adopted controls, which have not yet realized emission reductions and which are not relied upon in the maintenance demonstration, will be implemented within 24 months from trigger activation.
In any event, if a Tier II trigger is activated, EPD will consult and seek review from EPA on the analysis to determine the cause of the violation. The contingency measure(s) will be selected from the following types of emission controls or from any other control deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made by EPD:
• RACM for sources of SO
• Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT) for point sources of SO
• Expansion of RACM/RACT to areas of transport within the State;
• Mobile source measures; and
• Additional SO
In addition to the triggers indicated above, Georgia will monitor regional emissions through the CERR and AERR and compare them to the projected inventories and the attainment year inventory. In the August 30, 2012, submittal, the State acknowledges that the contingency plan requires the implementation of all measures contained in the SIP for the Area prior to redesignation. The State also notes that these measures are currently in effect and may be evaluated by the State to determine if they are adequate or up-to-date.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components required: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by GA EPD for the Atlanta Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.
As discussed in Section II of this notice, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 1997 PM
For the purposes of evaluating Georgia's redesignation request for the Atlanta Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not “applicable” for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of the Atlanta Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are “applicable” and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request.
On June 2, 2014, EPA published a rule entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM
Even though the substantive requirements of subpart 4 were not applicable requirements that Georgia was required to have met at the time of its redesignation request submission, EPA believes that even the imposition of those substantive requirements would not pose a bar to the redesignation of the Atlanta Area. The additional requirements found in subpart 4 are either designed to help an area achieve attainment (also known as “attainment planning requirements”) or are related to new source permitting. None of these additional requirements are applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation from nonattainment to attainment under EPA's long-standing interpretation of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
As background, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment.
As noted above, in the Classification and Deadlines Rule, EPA initially classified all areas designated nonattainment for either the 1997 or the 2006 PM
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under subpart 4,
Thus, at the time of Georgia's submission of its redesignation request, the requirement for the Atlanta Area to comply with subpart 4 had not yet come due and was, therefore, not applicable for purposes of EPA's evaluation of the redesignation. Moreover, even if Georgia had been required to comply with those subpart 4 requirements, the additional substantive requirements for a moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4 were not applicable for purposes of redesignation anyway, given EPA's long-standing interpretation of the applicability of certain requirements to areas that are attaining the NAAQS.
As noted previously, EPA does not believe that the requirement to comply with subpart 4 applied to the Atlanta Area redesignation request because that request was submitted prior to the moderate area SIP submission date of December 31, 2014. However, even if the requirements of subpart 4 were to apply to the Atlanta Area, EPA nevertheless believes that the additional requirements of subpart 4 would not pose an obstacle to our approval of Georgia's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area. Specifically, EPA proposes to determine that, because the Atlanta Area is attaining the standard, no additional controls of any PM
Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM
In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e).
As noted earlier, EPA determined in December 2011 that the Atlanta Area was attaining the 1997 Annual PM
EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 PM
First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second, total ammonia emissions throughout the Atlanta Area are projected to be approximately 13,620 tons per year in 2020.
The emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM
While the RIA emissions inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no reason to believe that this overall downward trend would not continue through 2025. Given that the Atlanta Area is already attaining the 1997 Annual PM
In addition, available air quality data and modeling analyses show continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. As noted in section V, above, the Atlanta Area recorded a maximum potential annual PM
Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that the Atlanta Area should be redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of VOC and ammonia potentially relevant to PM
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. A MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.
After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Atlanta Area, Georgia has elected to develop MVEBs for NO
The State estimated the worst case daily motor vehicle projections for NO
The 9,158 ton difference in the NO
Although there is no apparent safety margin for PM
As discussed in Section V, EPA believes that Area will maintain the NAAQS through 2025 and that the impact of the projected increase in PM
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NO
When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEB, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEBs must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance entitled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in rulemaking entitled “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-Hour Ozone and PM
As discussed earlier, Georgia's maintenance plan submission includes NO
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2024 MVEBs for the Atlanta Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on February 21, 2013. After EPA finds the 2024 MVEBs adequate under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)(iv) or takes final action to approve them into the Georgia SIP under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), the new MVEBs for NO
On December 8, 2011, EPA determined that the Atlanta Area was attaining the 1997 PM
First, EPA is proposing to determine, based upon review of quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2008-2010 period, and review of data in AQS for 2011 through 2014 that the Atlanta Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM
If finalized, approval of Georgia's redesignation request for the Atlanta Area would change the official designation of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton, and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties in Georgia, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive
• are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held February 19, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Supervisor's Office located at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Shoshana Cooper, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 208-765-7211 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. Proposal review and recommendations.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Janury 31, 2016 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Shoshana Cooper, RAC Coordinator, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815; or by email to
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Briefing notice.
Mauro Morales, Staff Director at Telephone: (202) 376-7700, TTY: (202) 376-8116.
This briefing is open to the public. Please contact the above for call-in information to telephonically attend the briefing. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
During the briefing, Commissioners will ask questions and discuss the briefing topic with the panelists. The public may submit written comments on the topic of the briefing to the above address for 30 days after the briefing. Please direct your comments to the attention of the “Staff Director” and clearly mark “Briefing Comments Inside” on the outside of the envelope. Please note we are unable to return any comments or submitted materials. Comments may also be submitted by email to
Topic: Briefing on Environmental Justice: Toxic Materials, Poor Economies, and the Impact to Low-Income, Minority Communities;
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of determination.
The United States Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) publishes this notice to announce that the Director of the Census Bureau has determined the need to conduct the 2015 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS). The AWTS covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in the Wholesale Trade sector as defined by the 2007 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Through this survey, the Census Bureau will collect data covering annual sales, e-commerce sales, purchases, total operating expenses, year-end inventories held both inside and outside the United States, commissions, total operating revenue, and gross selling value, for three components of wholesale activity: Wholesale distributors; manufacturers' sales branches and offices; and agents, brokers, and electronic markets. These data are collected to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various government agencies. Results will be available for use for a variety of public and business needs such as economic and market analysis, company performance, and forecasting future demand. The Census Bureau conducts the AWTS to provide continuing and timely national statistical data on wholesale trade annually.
The Census Bureau will provide electronic worksheets to businesses included in the survey. Additional copies are available upon written request to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-0101.
Susan Pozzanghera, Economy Wide Statistics Division, at (301) 763-7169 or by email at
Sections 131 and 182 of Title 13 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) authorize the Census Bureau to take surveys that are necessary to produce current data on the subjects covered by the Economic Census. Sections 224 and 225 of Title 13 make response to the AWTS mandatory. As part of this authorization, the Census Bureau conducts the AWTS to provide continuing and timely national statistical data on wholesale trade activity every year for the period between economic censuses. The AWTS covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in the Wholesale Trade sector as defined by the 2007 NAICS. The 2015 AWTS will collect data for three components of wholesale activity: Wholesale distributors; manufacturers' sales branches and offices; and agents, brokers, and electronic markets. For wholesale distributors, the Census Bureau will collect data covering sales, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, purchases, and total operating expenses. For manufacturers' sales branches and offices, the Census Bureau will collect data covering annual sales, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States and total operating expenses. For agents, brokers, and electronic markets, the Census Bureau will collect data covering commissions, total operating revenue, gross selling value, and total operating expenses. The Census Bureau has determined that this survey is necessary, as these data are not available publicly on a timely basis from non-governmental or other government sources. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29 minutes per response.
Firms were selected for the AWTS survey using a stratified random sample based on industry groupings and annual sales size. In an effort to streamline operations and conserve taxpayer time and money, the 2015 AWTS will be a paperless-based collection. We will provide electronic reporting instructions to the firms covered by this survey in March 2016 and will require their response by April 27, 2016. We will continue to provide guidance and instructions on reporting without forms using the secure Centurion system and secure email. Firms' responses to the AWTS are required by law (13 U.S.C. Sections 224 and 225), and the responses are confidential (13 U.S.C. Section 9). The sample of firms selected will provide, with measurable reliability, statistics on annual sales, e-commerce sales, purchases, total operating expenses, year-end inventories held both inside and outside the Unites States, commissions, total operating revenue, and gross selling value, for 2015.
The data collected in this survey will be similar to that collected in the past and within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the quinquennial economic census, which was most recently conducted in 2012. These data are collected to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various government agencies. Results will be available for use for a variety of public and business needs such as economic and market analysis, company performance, and forecasting future demand.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, OMB approved the AWTS under OMB control number 0607-0195.
Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the annual survey be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.
On September 2, 2015, the Louisville & Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 4, 2015, DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation (DNP), operator of Subzone 33E, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 33E, in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 2, 2015, CNH Industrial America, LLC, operator of Subzone 133E, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facilities within Subzone 133E, in Burlington and West Burlington, Iowa.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from India.
George McMahon or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 and (202) 482-6071, respectively.
On September 10, 2015, the Department published the
For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high-strength
Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• United States Steel (USS) Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel covered by this order, including: Vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.
As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the
Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for respondents noted above, which claimed no shipments, will remain unchanged from the rates assigned to
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 8, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its
Sean Carey, 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) 482-3964.
On July 8, 2015, the Department published its
On September 30, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for the final results in this administrative review until December 7, 2015.
On November 13, 2015, Clearon Corp. and Occidental Chemical Corp. (collectively, “Petitioners”) and Jiheng submitted case briefs.
The products covered by the order are chlorinated isos, which are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 and 3808.94.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to 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
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
Because no respondent established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, the Department, for these final results, did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies.
Pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, the Department made an adjustment for countervailable export subsidies.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review.
For each individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the exporter's listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
We will disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily find that the mandatory respondents, Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (Penghong) and The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai (Lizhong) (also known as “Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd.”), received countervailable subsidies during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.
Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s)
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
We received timely filed no-shipment certifications from Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd. on April 3, 2015, and from Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co, Ltd., and Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. on April 6, 2015.
We are conducting this 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 to be countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for each of the mandatory respondents, Penghong and Lizhong.
For the non-selected respondents, we have followed the Department's practice, which is to base the subsidy rates on an average of the subsidy rates calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding
We preliminarily find the countervailable subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
We will disclose
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
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 the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, 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.
Also in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies listed above. 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. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Dr. Mark Flint, University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, 529 Ellsberry Road, Apollo Beach, FL 33572 has been issued a permit to take loggerhead (
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Arturo Herrera or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
On March 25, 2015, notice was published in the
Dr. Flint has been issued a five-year permit to conduct research in Tampa Bay, Florida to determine the distribution and health status of the resident population of sea turtles in the region. Up to 200 sea turtles annually may be counted during vessel surveys and subsequently hand captured and
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
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 (PRA) of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 11, 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 Adam Bailey, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office (SERO), 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, (727) 824-5305 or
This request is for a revision to the existing reporting requirements approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0205, Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms. The SERO Permits Office (Southeast Permits Office) administers Federal fishing permits in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), South Atlantic, and Caribbean Sea under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801. The Southeast Permits Office proposes to revise two parts of the collection-of-information approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0205.
Currently, NMFS requires fishermen (respondents) to display one adhesive decal on their vessel indicating that they have a Federal fishing permit in at least one of two Gulf fisheries; the applicable permits are the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit for Gulf Reef Fish, the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit for Gulf Coastal Migratory Pelagic fish, and their respective Historical Captain endorsements. NMFS proposes to revise OMB Control Number 0648-0205 to split the single decal covering both fisheries into two decals, with one decal administered with each specific fishery permit or endorsement. In addition, this revision also addresses a new fee of $10 per decal to cover administrative costs, as required by NOAA Finance Handbook, Exhibit 9-1. The Federal Permit Application for Vessels Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone would also be revised to reflect the new fee. The decal is currently issued at no cost to permit applicants. These decals allow individuals and law enforcement officials to easily identify vessels that have Federal permits.
NMFS estimates this revision could affect up to 1,331 respondents (applicants), which is the total number of permitted charter and headboat vessels in these limited access fisheries, including the Historical Captain endorsements for each fishery. The maximum number of permits and endorsements at this time is 2,645. Generally, the 1,331 respondents have a set of 2 permits, but it is not required. Each of the two permits or endorsements that a respondent may have can be split up and held by two respondents. Some of these have been split up and that is why there is an odd number of permits, and the number of respondents is not exactly half of the maximum number of permits and endorsements.
Because of the new fee and instructions, NMFS has revised the time burden required to indicate which permit the respondent is renewing or transferring up to 30 seconds. The time burden estimated for this part of the revision is 11.1 hours annually. Although it is not expected, all 1,331 respondents could potentially renew, or transfer or obtain 2 different permits or endorsements, requiring up to 2 decals to be purchased. NMFS estimates the total annual cost at up to $26,450.
The Southeast Permits Office is also proposing to collect additional information on five applications for economic analysis and for purposes of notifying respondents. These data include race, sex, and business type and ownership information, as well as email addresses and the option to provide cellular contact information for digital notifications. The revision will also include a small business certification section, so NMFS can determine if the respondent is a small or large business according to standards established by the Small Business Administration.
These proposed revisions will not change the current cost burden but will increase the annual time burden for respondents. NMFS estimates this revision could affect up to 6,641 respondents across the 5 applications being revised, which includes the 1,331 respondents described above. The time burden estimated for this part of the revision is 925.9 hours annually.
NMFS estimates that the requested revision would add 0 respondents, 6,641 responses, 937 burden hours, and $26,450 in total costs annually to the collection-of-information under OMB Control Number 0648-0205.
Respondents complete applications on paper forms, and then can either mail or bring applications to the Southeast Permits Office. Online application renewals are currently available only for some of the permits included on the Federal Permit Application for Vessels Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Southeast Permits Office can mail applications and instructions or they can be downloaded from the Southeast Permits Office Web site at
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.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of Meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) announces that on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, from 9:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., the CFTC's Technology Advisory Committee (“TAC”) will hold a public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC headquarters. The TAC will discuss: (1) The Commission's proposed Regulation Automated Trading (“Reg AT”); (2) swap data standardization and harmonization; and (3) blockchain and the potential application of distributed ledger technology to the derivatives market.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 from 9:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by Tuesday, January 26, 2016.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by mail to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretary, or by electronic mail to:
Ward P. Griffin, TAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5425.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site,
5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2).
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Operation AmeriCorps Evaluation for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Joseph Breems, at 202-606-6992 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within February 10, 2016.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by either of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the Baseline Questionnaire for Caregivers. This instrument will be administered to caregivers of Senior Companion Program service recipients (respite service and independent living service) to assess their demographic characteristics, psycho-social health and wellbeing, and their physical health. Participation is completely voluntary participation is not considered as a factor in obtaining grant funding support from Senior Corps.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation; Attention Anthony Nerino, Research Analyst, #10913A; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Anthony Nerino, (202) 606-3913, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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 expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
CNCS is submitting a modification to the statement of work outlining technical assistance to implement a study of caregivers of SCP respite
This project involves a survey of caregivers to individuals who are recipients of independent living services, and caregivers to individuals receiving respite care services. Potential survey respondents will be drawn from a list of registered beneficiaries provided by a sample of SCP grantees. SCP and FGP members will be drawn from a list of registered members provided by a sample of SCP and FGP grantees. Potential interview respondents will include, caregivers SCP respite and independent services. Survey data will be collected using a multi-modal survey methods including phone surveys, paper surveys and on-line surveys.
Quantitative data analysis will include descriptive statistics and inferential analysis of survey responses by respondent characteristics. Analyses will focus on identifying demographic factors of recipients and members, and on self-reported health status and psycho-social factors including self-efficacy, loneliness and depression.
This is a new information collection request. CNCS seeks public comment on a new data collection instrument and a set of interview questions developed for this project. The instrument and interview questionnaire has been designed by the contractor for this project and represents an information collection instrument specific to the modified Statement of Work and modified project goals.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), the Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Schafer Aerospace; a corporation having its principle place of business at 2309 Renard Place SE., Suite 300, Albuquerque, NM 87106, exclusive license in the field of fiber laser array systems with specific application in the areas of laser communication, beam aberration correction, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR/LADAR), beam steering (random access) and precision pointing and tracking. The proposed license would be relative to the following:
• U.S. Patent Number 9,223,091 entitled “Light Beam Collimator Particularly Suitable for a Densely Packed Array”, Inventor Beresnev, Issue Date Dec. 29, 2015.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321 Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.
Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, E-Mail:
None.
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce a meeting of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the Commission”). The meeting will be open to the public.
Date of the Open Meeting: Thursday, January 28, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Address of Open Meeting, January 28, 2016: Room 285, State Services Organization, Hall of States, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 237, Washington, DC 20001.
Mr. Don Tison, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Future of the Army, 700 Army Pentagon, Room 3E406, Washington, DC 20310-0700, Email:
This meeting will be held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 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.
During the open meeting on Thursday, January 28, 2016, the Commission will publicly release their final report.
January 28, 2016—Open Meeting: The Commission will hold an open meeting to provide comments and announce the release of the Commission's final report.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for January 28, 2016 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Hall of States is open to the public. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register. Members of the media must comply with the rules of photography and video filming published by the State Services Organization and George Washington University. The closest public parking facility is on the property, for an hourly fee. The Union Station metro is a two-block walk. Visitors should keep their belongings with them at all times.
The DoD sponsor for the Commission is the Deputy Chief Management Officer. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2016 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the Army will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Omaha District, intends to prepare a feasibility study with integrated environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzes and discloses effects associated with actions to provide ecosystem restoration along the South Platte River and flood risk management actions along two South Platte River tributaries (Harvard Gulch and Weir Gulch).
Submit written comments on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS on or before February 19, 2016.
Send written scoping comments, requests to be added to the mailing list, or requests for sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired or other special assistance needs to Ms. Tiffany Vanosdall by telephone: (402) 995-2695, by mail: 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102-4901, or by email:
For further information and/or questions about the proposed feasibility study with integrated EIS, please contact Mr. Luke Wallace by telephone: (402) 995-2692, by mail: 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102-4901, or by email:
USACE is issuing this notice pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Public Meetings: Public scoping meetings for the various study reaches will be held from 5:30-7:30 p.m. MDT at the following locations:
•
•
•
The Unified City and County of Denver and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Corps) are conducting a feasibility study for ecosystem restoration along the South Platte River and flood risk management along two of its tributaries, Weir Gulch and Harvard Gulch, in the City and County of Denver. The ecosystem portion of the study will optimize federally significant resources including habitat for migratory birds, wetlands and riparian habitat, and aquatic resources of the South Platte River and its tributaries. The geographic scope of the study area includes the South Platte River from 6th Avenue to 58th Avenue, Weir Gulch from Sheridan Boulevard east to the confluence with the South Platte River, and Harvard Gulch from Colorado Boulevard west to the confluence with the South Platte River.
The purpose of the project along the South Platte River is to address loss of riparian, wetland and in-channel habitat associated with urban development. There is a need to provide a functioning habitat corridor through Denver for migratory birds, as well as wetland and aquatic species. The purpose of the project along the Harvard Gulch and Weir Gulch tributaries to the South Platte River is to address flood risk issues in order to reduce flood and life safety risks along each stream. Urban development within the floodplain in both gulches consists of approximately 1,180 structures and an associated 9,150 people at risk of flooding. The report will be a final response to the study authority.
The City and County of Denver covers approximately 153 square miles which is only 0.15 percent of the State's area, but is densely populated with approximately 12 percent of the State's population; the total metropolitan area population (2.4 million) is
Denver County lies approximately 10 miles east of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. This heavily influences the County's weather. Denver has a semi-arid climate with all four seasons discernible. Average annual precipitation is 16 inches. The natural land cover is primarily short-grass prairie and semi-desert.
For approximately 10 river miles the South Platte River flows north through Denver. Its tributaries in Denver include Cherry Creek, smaller Bear Creek, and still smaller Weir Gulch, Lakewood Gulch, Sanderson Gulch, Harvard Gulch, and West Harvard Gulch.
The Harvard Gulch watershed is an east bank tributary to the South Platte River located in southeast Denver. The 7.43-square mile drainage basin is 72.5 percent within the City and County of Denver and 27.5 percent in Arapahoe County. The major drainage way has a perennial base flow and follows a path along Harvard Avenue until reaching Logan Street where it is conveyed underground in Wesley Avenue to the outfall at the South Platte River.
The Weir Gulch watershed is a west bank tributary to the South Platte River in Denver and has a drainage area of approximately 7.7 square miles at the confluence with the South Platte River.
As required by CEQ's implementing regulations, all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need will be considered in the EIS. These alternatives will include no action and a range of reasonable alternatives for improving the South Platte ecosystem and reducing flood risk on Harvard and Weir Gulch. Appropriate mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. The EIS will analyze and disclose environmental impacts associated with the proposed Federal action and alternatives together with engineering, operations and maintenance, social, and economic considerations. The public is invited and encouraged to identify issues and effects they believe should be addressed in the EIS and reasonable alternatives for ecosystem restoration along the South Platte River and flood risk management along Harvard Gulch and Weir Gulch.
The Corps believes it is important to inform the public of the environmental review process. To assist the Corps in identifying and considering issues related to the proposed Federal action, comments made during formal scoping and later on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. Reviewers must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the Corps to the reviewers' position and contentions. It is very important that those interested in this proposed Federal action participate by the close of the scoping period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Corps at a time when they can meaningfully consider and respond to them.
If you wish to comment, you can mail or email your comments as indicated under the Addresses section. Before including your name, address, phone number, email address, or any other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made available to the public at any time.
While you can request in your comment for us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 February 10, 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 Inas El-Sabban, 202-205-3810.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE), 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 February 10, 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 Laura Messenger, 202-245-7840.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Perkins Discretionary Grant Performance Report is (a) submitted electronically via OCTAE-DATE's Perkins Web Portal; (b) stored in OCTAE-DATE's Improving Program Performance Database; and (c) accessed through OCTAE-DATE's Perkins Information Management System (PIMS). The Perkins Information Management System includes an administrative console that enables OCTAE-DATE staff to—a) query the system by grantee, by program, and by state; (b) view narrative, financial, and performance data within and across programs; and (c) create customized reports.
The Perkins Discretionary Grant Performance Report is a generic, single reporting instrument that combines all of the EDGAR performance and financial reporting requirements for discretionary grant recipients funded under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-270). Recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit interim performance reports, usually annually, for each year funding has been approved in order to receive a continuation award. The annual performance report should demonstrate whether substantial progress has been made toward meeting the approved goals and objectives of the project. OCTAE-DATE also requires recipients of “forward funded” grants that are awarded funds for their entire multi-year project up-front in a single grant award to submit an annual performance report.
On December 10, 2014, Twain Resources, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Easygo Hydroelectric Project (Easygo Project or project) to be located in an inactive underground mine adjacent to Morgan Creek near the City of Bishop, in Inyo County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 12-foot-high by 12-foot-wide by 30-foot-thick reinforced concrete plug inside a 12,000-foot-long mine access tunnel capable of storing water up to 1,320 feet of gross head; (2) a 200-acre-foot in-mine reservoir that backs up water inside the mine to a maximum elevation of 9,400 feet above sea level; (3) a 24-inch or 18-inch steel penstock through the concrete plug connecting to a 1,500 kilowatt impulse turbine; (4) a 1.573 kilovolt-amp generator; (5) an approximately 2,500-foot-long transmission line connecting the generator to a California Edison-owned substation; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Easygo Project would be 5,600 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference on January 26, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for technical conference as established in the December 3, 2015 Order (
Advanced registration is required for all attendees. Attendees may register in advance at the following Web page:
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Adrianne Cook, 202-502-8849,
Take notice that on December 29, 2015, City of Azusa, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Azusa, California 2016 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. 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
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 19, 2016.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for several registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration review. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2016.
Submit your comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III. A., by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a
1.
2.
3.
EPA is initiating its review of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered, or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.
1.
• An overview of the registration review case status.
• A list of current product registrations and registrants.
•
•
• Risk assessments.
• Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
• Summaries of incident data.
• Any other pertinent data or information.
Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration review of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.
2.
3.
• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.
• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English, and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.
• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
EPA is notifying the public that it has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (DFW) Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted on July 10, 2015 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the DFW area must use these budgets for future conformity determinations.
These budgets are effective January 26, 2016.
The essential information in this notice will be available at EPA's conformity Web site:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refers to EPA. The word “budget(s)” refers to the mobile source emissions budget for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the mobile source emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NO
On July 10, 2015, we received a SIP revision from the TCEQ. This revision consisted of an RFP SIP for the DFW ozone nonattainment area. This submission established MVEBs for the DFW area for the year 2017. The MVEB is the amount of emissions allowed in the state implementation plan for on-road motor vehicles; it establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. The MVEBs are provided in Table 1:
On August 25, 2015, EPA posted the availability of the DFW area MVEBs on EPA's Web site for the purpose of soliciting public comments, as part of the adequacy process. The comment period closed on September 24, 2015, and we received no comments.
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region 6 sent a letter to TCEQ on December 10, 2015, finding that the MVEBs in the DFW RFP SIP, submitted on July 10, 2015 are adequate and must be used for transportation conformity determinations in the DFW area. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 93, requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have also described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM
Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the DFW-area transportation partners, such as the North Central Texas Council of Governments, will need to demonstrate conformity to the new MVEBs if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed
Comments must be submitted on or before February 10, 2016.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should be sent to the individual identified below and should reference the Mercury Refining Superfund Site, Index No. CERCLA-02-2015-2020. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the individual identified below.
Sharon E. Kivowitz, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-3183. E-Mail:
The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the report on competitiveness of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for CommunitySouth Bank and Trust, Easley, SC (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of McIntosh Commercial Bank on January 21, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Commerce Community Bank, Douglasville, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Commerce Community Bank on September 17, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for McIntosh Commercial Bank, Carrollton, GA (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of McIntosh Commercial Bank on March 26, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Election Commission
Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220
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 5, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, or
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Alternative Fuels Rule. That clearance expires on June 30, 2016.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 11, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Alternative Fuels Rule should be directed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 326-2889, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the Alternative Fuels Rule, 16 CFR part 309 (OMB Control Number 3084-0094).
The Rule, which implements the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, and as revised by the Commission's 2013 final amendments,
It is common practice for alternative fuel industry members to determine and monitor fuel ratings in the normal course of their business activities. This is because industry members must know and determine the fuel ratings of their products in order to monitor quality and to decide how to market them. “Burden” for PRA purposes is defined to exclude effort that would be expended regardless of any regulatory requirement. 5 CFR 1320.2(b)(2). Moreover, as originally anticipated when the Rule was promulgated in 1995, many of the information collection requirements and the originally estimated hours were associated with one-time start up tasks of implementing standard systems and processes.
Other factors also limit the burden associated with the Rule. Certification may be a one-time event or require only infrequent revision. Disclosures on electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems may be useable for several years. Nonetheless, there is still some burden associated with posting labels. There also will be some minimal burden associated with new or revised certification of fuel ratings and recordkeeping.
4,190 total burden hours
Thus, estimated total burden for non-liquid alternative fuels is 4,190 hours (550 + 1,300 + 2,340).
$106,145
Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2014 (most recent available whole-year information),
Associated labor cost: $106,164 ($87,769 for certification and labeling costs + $18,395 for recordkeeping costs).
Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs associated with the Rule, inasmuch as the Rule has been in effect since 1995. Industry members, therefore, have in place the capital equipment and means necessary to determine automotive fuel ratings and comply with the Rule. Industry members, however, incur the cost of procuring fuel dispenser labels to comply with the Rule.
The estimated annual fuel labeling cost, based on estimates of approximately 5,000 fuel dispensers (assumptions: An estimated 20% of 12,500 total fuel retailers need to replace labels in any given year with an approximate five-year life for labels—
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 11, 2016. Write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P134200” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2).
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c)).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P134200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, GSA.
Meeting notice.
The Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities (CECANF), a Federal Advisory Committee established by the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, will hold conference calls open to the public on the following dates: Thursday, January 14, 2016 and Saturday, January 16, 2016.
The meeting on Thursday, January 14, 2016 will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). The meeting on Saturday, January 16, 2016 will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
CECANF will convene these meetings via conference call. Submit comments identified by “Notice-CECANF-2016-01,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Visit the CECANF Web site at
However, members of the public wishing to comment should follow the steps detailed under the heading
The reason CECANF is providing less than 15 calendar days' notice for this meeting is because of the short timeframe allowed for Commissioners to hold a final deliberation on the draft report before its publication date.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD)—Revision (OMB Control No. 0920-0604, expiration 04/30/2016)—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
School-associated violence, particularly homicides and suicides that occur in schools, has been a significant public concern for several years. Despite the important role of schools as a setting for violence research and prevention interventions, relatively little scientific or systematic work has been conducted to describe the nature and level of fatal violence associated with schools. Public health and education officials have had to rely on limited local studies and estimated numbers to describe the extent of school-associated violent death. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) requested assistance from the Division of Violence Prevention (DVP)/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) in establishing an ongoing surveillance system of school-associated violent deaths (SAVD) in the United States with the goal of tracking and monitoring the extent of this problem on an ongoing basis. The SAVD surveillance system remains the only systematic effort to document school-associated violent deaths on a national basis. Data from the SAVD surveillance system are intended to contribute to the understanding of fatal violence associated with schools, guide further research in the area, and help direct ongoing and future prevention programs.
The data collection methodology involves investigators reviewing public records and published press reports concerning each SAVD. For each identified case, investigators will interview an investigating law enforcement official and a school official who are knowledgeable about the case in question. Researchers will request information on both the victim and alleged offender(s)—including demographic data, their academic and criminal records, and their relationship to one another. They will also collect data on the time and location of the death; the circumstances, motive, and method of the fatal injury; and the security and violence prevention activities in the school and community where the death occurred, before and after the fatal injury event. Additionally, law enforcement reports on each case are obtained. The study population will include the victims and offenders from all identified events in which there was a school-associated violent death in the U.S.
The surveillance system will continue to contribute to the understanding of fatal violence associated with schools, guide further research in the area, and help direct ongoing and future prevention programs. Data collected through the surveillance system will be reviewed and used by CDC, the US Department of Education, the US Department of Justice, and other outside agencies and organizations.
OMB approval is requested for three years. The only cost to respondents will be time spent on the telephone responding to the survey.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Evaluation of Dating Matters®: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships—Revision (OMB# 0920-0941, expiration date 5/30/2016)—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking a revision request that will enable continued longitudinal follow-up for CDC's teen dating violence (TDV) prevention initiative, Dating Matters®: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships. Approval of this revision request will
All data collected as part of this request will be used in the longitudinal outcome evaluation of the Dating Matters® initiative. No teen dating violence comprehensive program has been developed and implemented specifically for high risk urban communities. Further, no other data source exists to examine the effectiveness of the Dating Matters® initiative for preventing dating violence. The evaluation utilizes a cluster randomized design in which 46 schools in four funded communities (Alameda County, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Broward County, Florida; and, Chicago, Illinois), were randomized to either Dating Matters® or standard practice.
CDC seeks to continue evaluation activities in these four communities. Therefore, this data collection is critical to understand the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost of Dating Matters® and to inform decisions about disseminating the program to other communities.
OMB approval is requested for three years for this revision. The only cost to respondents will be time spent on responding to the survey. A total of 4,399 respondents will be approached on an annual basis with an average estimated burden of 45/60 minutes per respondent per year (3,299 burden hours).
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 following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
* Please note that the public comment period ends at the time indicated above or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Members of the public who want to submit comments must pre-register by January 18, 2016 to
Members of the public must indicate at pre-registration whether they would like to deliver oral remarks in addition to written comment. Comments may be delivered in person or by phone and will be assigned on a first come-first served basis until all time slots are filled. Speakers providing public comment must call in or be present at the beginning of the public comment period. All public comments will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Since the number of time slots is limited, it is requested that each organization register one speaker to represent their organization. Both oral and written comments will be included in the official record of the meeting.
Audio Conference toll-free dial-in Number: 1-888-469-1243, Participant Code: 4709506, TTY accessible link:
CDC encourages participation by persons with disabilities. Captions and participation by persons with communications challenges will be available online via Relay Conference Captioning. To view the online captions at the start time of the event, please login for captioning at
Requests for accommodations, questions, or comments on accessibility (Section 508) compliance may be directed to Tonia Lindley,
The Board of Scientific Counselors makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; and reviews progress toward injury prevention goals and provides
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Contact Person for More Information: Arlene Greenspan, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., P.T. Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4696; Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Airline and Maritime Conveyance Manifest Orders—Existing Information Collection in use without an OMB Control Number—Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Under the Public Health Service Act (42 United States Code 264) and under 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 71.32(b) and 42 CFR 70.2, CDC can order airlines and maritime lines operating conveyances arriving from another country or traveling between states to submit a record for passengers and crew that CDC believes were exposed to co-traveler infected with a communicable disease of public health concern.
Stopping a communicable disease outbreak—whether it is naturally occurring or intentionally caused—requires the use of the most rapid and effective public health tools available. Basic public health practices, such as collaborating with airlines in the identification and notification of potentially exposed contacts, are critical tools in the fight against the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases in the United States.
The collection of comprehensive, pertinent contact information enables Quarantine Public Health Officers in CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) to notify state and local health departments in order for them to make contact with individuals who may have been exposed to a contagious person during travel and identify appropriate next steps.
In the event that there is a confirmed case of communicable disease of public health concern aboard an aircraft or ship, CDC collects manifest information for those passengers and crew at risk for exposure. This specific manifest information collection differs depending on the communicable disease that is confirmed during air or maritime travel. CDC then uses this passenger and crew manifest information to coordinate with state and local health departments so they can follow-up with residents who live or are currently located in their jurisdiction. In general, state and local health departments are responsible for the contact investigations. In rare cases, CDC may use the manifest data to perform the contact investigation directly. In either case, CDC works with state and local health departments to ensure individuals are contacted and provided appropriate public health follow-up.
CDC estimates that for each traveler manifest ordered, airlines require approximately six hours to review the order, search their records, and send those records to CDC. There is no cost to respondents other than their time
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program, which is open to the public. The purpose of this stakeholder meeting is to solicit feedback on the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and to discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond. This meeting, the “HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference,” will allow issuers, States, and other interested parties to discuss the contents of a White Paper to be published in advance of this meeting. This meeting will also provide an opportunity for participants to ask clarifying questions. The comments and information HHS obtains through this meeting may be used in future policy making for the HHS risk adjustment program.
For further information, please send inquiries about the logistics of the meeting to
This notice announces a meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program to discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond. This meeting will focus on the permanent risk adjustment program under section 1343 of the Affordable Care Act when HHS is operating a risk adjustment program on behalf of a State (referred to as the HHS-operated risk adjustment program).
We are committed to stakeholder engagement in developing the detailed processes of the HHS-operated risk adjustment program. The purpose of this meeting is to share information with issuers, States, and interested parties about the risk adjustment methodology, offer an opportunity for these stakeholders to comment on key elements of the risk adjustment methodology, and discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond.
The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will share information with stakeholders including issuers, States, and interested parties about the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and gather feedback on a White Paper on the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology that will be issued in March 2016. The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will focus on an overview of the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and other international risk adjustment models, what we have learned from the 2014 benefit year of the risk adjustment program and specific areas of potential refinements to the
The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by using the instructions in the “REGISTRATION” section of this notice by the date specified in the
This meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons brought entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.
All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting February 2-3, 2016. The meeting is open to the public. However, pre-registration is required for both public attendance and public comment. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register at
The meeting will be held on February 2-3, 2016. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site at
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, the Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast the day of the meeting. For more information, visit
National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email:
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.
The February 2016 NVAC meeting agenda will include discussions on mechanisms to support vaccine development and innovation, vaccine pricing and purchasing behaviors in the private vaccine market, and quality measures for adult immunizations. The NVAC will hear an update on progress towards a mid-course review of the 2010 National Vaccine Plan, as well as an update from the NVAC Maternal Immunizations Working Group. Committee members also will be provided information on ongoing Departmental efforts to support the pre-departure vaccination of U.S.-bound refugees. Please note that agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC Web site:
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend in person and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. It is requested that individuals submitting written comments email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office (
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory 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 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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.
SAMHSA is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise the collection of surveys of current and alumni MFP fellows to include current and alumni fellows from the Now Is The Time-MFP-Youth (NITT-MFP-Y) and NITT-MFP-Addiction Counselors (NITT-MFP-AC) grant programs. These surveys would gather information about current and alumni fellows in all three programs that will help SAMHSA meet its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information about government-funded programs such as the MFP, the NITT-MFP-Y, and the NITT-MFP-AC.
In 1973, in response to a substantial lack of ethnic and racial minorities in the mental health professions, the Center for Minority Health at the National Institute of Mental Health established the MFP. Since its move to SAMHSA in 1992, the MFP has continued to facilitate the entry of graduate students and psychiatric residents into mental health careers and has increased the number of psychology, psychiatry, nursing, and social work professionals trained to provide mental health and substance abuse services to minority groups. In 2014, funds were appropriated to expand the traditional MFP to include two programs to support the President's NITT initiative: NITT-MFP-Y and NITT-MFP-AC. These programs provide stipends and tuition support to students pursuing master's level training in behavioral health fields like psychology, social work, professional counseling, marriage and family therapy, nursing, and addiction/substance abuse counseling, thus directly supporting the NITT goal of increasing behavioral health services for youth and contributing to making schools safer. The traditional MFP offers sustained grants to six national behavioral health professional
This package includes two survey instruments, the Current SAMHSA MFP Fellows survey and the MFP Alumni survey, which have previously been administered to current and alumni fellows of the traditional MFP grant program. SAMHSA is requesting approval from OMB to include respondents (
The two online surveys (with the option for a hard copy mailed through the U.S. Postal Service) will be used with the following stakeholders in the MFP grant programs:
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
The survey data will also be utilized in an evaluation of the NITT-MFP programs. The requested additional questions will allow the evaluation to assess the overall success of the SAMHSA NITT initiative in enhancing the behavioral health workforce in terms of the number of master's level behavioral health specialists trained with MFP support, their competencies and characteristics, and their capacity to meet behavioral health workforce needs. The evaluation will also explore whether the program results in increased knowledge, skills, and aptitude among NITT-MFP fellows to provide culturally competent behavioral health services to underserved, at risk children, adolescents, and transition-age youth (ages 16-25); and how these new behavioral health professionals are sustained in the workforce.
The total annual burden estimate for conducting the surveys is shown below:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email a copy at
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of extension of a currently approved information collection, (1028-0103).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the information collection request (ICR) described below. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. This collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016.
To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before February 10, 2016.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (
Jake Weltzin, U.S. Geological Survey, 325 BioSciences East, 1311 East 4th Street, Tucson, AZ 85721 (mail); (520) 626-3821 (phone); or
The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) is a program sponsored by the USGS that uses standardized forms for tracking plant and animal activity as part of a project called Nature's Notebook. The Nature's Notebook forms are used to record phenology (
We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us and the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Liquor Control Ordinance. The ordinance allows the Tribe to manufacture beer, and allows for the sale, distribution, and tribal taxation of beer within the jurisdiction of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. This Ordinance repeals and replaces the previous liquor control ordinance published in the
This ordinance is effective January 11, 2016.
Mr. Gregory Norton, Tribal Government
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians duly adopted this amendment to the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Liquor Ordinance by Resolution Number 2015/099 on May 28, 2015.
The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians (Tribe) has a significant interest in protecting the health, safety and general welfare of its members, the residents within the Tribe's Indian Country and those persons and businesses doing business on and/or visiting the Tribe's Indian Country. The purpose of the Ordinance is to exercise the Tribe's jurisdiction to regulate the sale, manufacturing, distribution, and taxation of liquor within the Tribe's Indian Country in conformity with any compact between the Tribe and the State of Washington, Article 10 of the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855, 12 Stat. 927, to which the Tribe is a party, and in conformity with 18 U.S.C. 1161, and to raise revenues to fund health, safety and general welfare programs and services provided to Tribal members and residents of and visitors to land within the Tribe's territorial jurisdiction.
The authority to protect the Tribe as a sovereign political entity and to adopt the Ordinance codified herein is vested in the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Board of Directors under Article III and Article V, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which Board has enumerated authority under Article V, Sec. 1 (a) to enact a comprehensive law and order code which provides for tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction; under Article V Sec. 1(b) to administer the affairs and assets of the Tribe, including tribal lands and funds; under Article V, Section 1(d) to provide for taxes, assessments, permits and license fees upon members and non-members within the Tribe's jurisdiction; and under Article V Sec. l(h), to exercise other necessary powers to fulfill the Board's obligations, responsibilities and purposes as the governing body of the Tribe; and in the inherent sovereignty of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians to regulate its own territory and activities therein.
The need exists for strict tribal regulation and control over liquor distribution, manufacturing, sales and taxation within the Tribe's Indian Country. Therefore, in the public interest and for the welfare of the people of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, its employees, the residents of and visitors to Indian Country, the Stillaguamish Board of Directors, in the exercise of its authority under the Tribe's Constitution, declares its purpose by the provisions of this Subchapter to regulate the sale, manufacturing and distribution of liquor.
(1) This Subchapter shall apply to the full extent of the sovereign jurisdiction of the Tribe.
(2) Compliance with this Subchapter is hereby made a condition of the use of any land or premises within the Tribe's Indian Country.
(3) Any person who resides, conducts business, engages in a business transaction, receives benefits from the Tribe, acts under tribal authority, or enters the Tribe's Indian Country shall be deemed to have consented to the following:
(a) To be bound by the terms of this Subchapter;
(b) To the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Stillaguamish tribal Court for legal actions arising pursuant to this Subchapter; and
(c) To detainment, service of summons and process, and search and seizure, in conjunction with legal actions arising pursuant to this Subchapter.
(4) No portion of this Ordinance and Subchapter shall be construed as contrary to Federal law.
(1) All ordinances and resolutions of the Tribe regulating, authorizing, prohibiting or in any way dealing with the sale of liquor heretofore enacted or now in effect are hereby repealed and are declared to be of no further force and effect, with the exception of the provisions of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Law and Order Code, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 8.40, Alcohol-Related Offenses.
(2) The provisions of this Subchapter shall be prospective only from the date of its effectiveness. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to revoke any presently existing valid license or permit or renewal thereof previously issued by the Washington State Liquor Control Board or the exercise of privilege given thereunder to any retailer subject to the provisions of this Subchapter.
All definitions of the Taxation Code Section 3.06.201 apply herein unless the terms are otherwise defined in this Subchapter. For purposes of this Subchapter, whenever any of the following words, terms or definitions is used herein, they shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Subchapter:
(1) “Brewer” or “brewery” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and malt liquor and as such terms are further defined in the Revised Code of Washington in RCW 66.04.010.
(2) “Indian Country,” consistent with the meaning given in 18 U.S.C. 1151 means: (a) all land within the limits of the Stillaguamish Indian Reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights of way running through the reservation; and (b) all Indian allotments or other lands held in trust for the Tribe or a member of the Tribe, including rights of way running through the same.
(3) “Liquor” means the four varieties of liquor (alcohol, spirits, wine, and beer), and all fermented, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, or combinations thereof, and mixed liquor, a part of which is fermented, spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and as such term and the four varieties thereof are further defined in the Revised Code of Washington in RCW 66.04.010.
(4) “Malt beverage” or “malt liquor” means any beverage such as beer, ale, lager beer, stout, and porter obtained by
(5) “Manufacturer” means a person engaged in the preparation and manufacturing of liquor for sale, in any form whatsoever.
(6) “Sale” and “sell” means the same as such terms are defined in the Revised Code of Washington in RCW 66.04.010.
(7) “Tribal retailer” means a liquor retailer wholly owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and located in Indian Country.
(8) “Tribally-licensed retailer” means a person who has a business license from the Tribe to sell liquor at retail from a business located in Indian Country.
The Board hereby authorizes the Tax Commission of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians to administer this Subchapter, including general control, management and supervision of all liquor sales, manufacturing, and distribution, places of sale and sales outlets, and to exercise all of the powers and accomplish all of the purposes thereof as hereinafter set forth any do the following acts and things for and on behalf of and in the name of the Tribe:
(1) Adopting and enforcing rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Subchapter the performance of its functions;
(2) Collecting, auditing and issuing fees, licenses, taxes and permits; and
(3) Performing all matters and things incidental to and necessary to conduct its business and carry out its duties and functions under this Subchapter.
Every person engaging in the business of selling, manufacturing, or distributing liquor within the Tribe's Indian Country, including but not limited to a brewery, shall secure a business license from the Tribe in the manner provided for by Subchapter 100 of this Title (“Business Licenses”) and otherwise comply with all provisions of Subchapter 100.
(1) The manufacture, purchase, sale, and dealing in liquor within Tribe's Indian Country by any person, party, firm, or corporation except pursuant to the control, licensing, and regulation of the Stillaguamish Tax Commission, is hereby declared unlawful. Without limitation as to any other penalties and fines that may apply, any violation of this subsection is an infraction punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00).
(2) Every person engaging in the business of manufacturing, distributing or selling liquor within the Tribe's Indian Country shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.40, Alcohol-Related Offenses, of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Law and Order Code, the provisions of which are re-affirmed and are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. Any violation of this subsection is punishable pursuant to the penalty provisions of Chapter 8.40, Alcohol-Related Offenses of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Law and Order Code.
Tribal retailers and tribally-licensed retailers shall comply with any applicable Washington State liquor law standards to the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1161 and the Agreement Between the Washington State Liquor Control Board and the Stillaguamish Indian Tribe for Purchase and Resale of Liquor in Indian Country (“Agreement”), if any. To the extent provisions of this Subchapter conflict with the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement control.
The Tribe expressly reserves its inherent sovereign right to regulate the use and sale of liquor through the imposition of tribal taxes thereon. The Board hereby authorizes and expressly reserves its authority to impose a tribal Liquor Tax on sales of all alcoholic beverages, including packaged and retail sales of liquor, wine, and beer, at a rate determined to be fair and equitable by the Board through independent action.
The Tribe's Retail Sales Tax shall not apply to retail sales of liquor.
If any section, provision, phrase, addition, word, sentence or amendment of this Subchapter or its application to any person is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this Subchapter that can be given effect without the invalid application, and to that end the provisions of this Subchapter are declared severable.
No provision of this Subchapter shall be construed as imposing a regulation or tax that discriminates on the basis of whether a retail liquor establishment is owned, managed or operated by a member of the Tribe.
This Subchapter shall be and become effective upon publication by the United States Department of the Interior's certification in the
Nothing in this Subchapter shall be construed as a waiver or limitation of the inherent sovereign immunity of the Tribe.
Ordinance 2008/060 enacting this Title 3, Chapter 6 took effect on April 30, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. upon the approval of its provisions by the Board of Directors of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, which date was April 28, 2008. Title 3, Chapter 6 of the Tribe's Law and Order Code was repealed and replaced with this Title, as amended by resolution 2011/048, enacted by the Board of Directors of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians on April 14, 2011, as amended by resolution 2012/146 dated September 27, 2012, as amended by resolution 2015/099 dated May 28, 2015.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for proposals; extension of deadline.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) previously announced the availability of enhancement funds to Tribes and their Tribal education departments (TEDs) to promote Tribal control and operation of BIE-funded schools on their reservations. This notice extends the deadline for Tribes
Grant proposals must be received by January 13, 2016, at 4 p.m. Eastern Time. The BIE will hold pre-grant proposal training sessions. See
Complete details on requirements for proposals and the evaluation and selection process can be found on the BIE Web site at
Ms. Wendy Greyeyes, Bureau of Indian Education, Office of the Director, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208-5810.
See the notice published on December 7, 2015, (80 FR 76031) for background information.
Grant proposals are due January 13, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The proposal should be packaged for delivery to permit timely arrival. The proposal package should be sent or hand delivered to the address in the
Faxed applications will not be accepted. Email submissions will be accepted at the address in the
Proposals submitted by Federal Express or Express Mail should be sent two or more days prior to the closing date. The proposal package should be sent to the address shown in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
Michael O. Harmening, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact 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.
1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on August 26, 2015:
The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision-of-section lines of section 32, and the further subdivision of section 32, Township 22 South, Range 60 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 930, was accepted August 25, 2015. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on October 8, 2015:
The plat, in 6 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line, through a portion of Range 37 East and through Range 38 East, the south boundary, portions of the east and west boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines and Mineral Survey Nos. 1739 and 2688 and the independent resurvey of portions of the east and west boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 1 South, Range 38 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 911, was accepted September 29, 2015. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on October 8, 2015:
The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line, through a portion of Range 38 1/2 East, and a portion of the subdivisional lines and the independent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 1 South, Range 39 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 911, was accepted September 29, 2015. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
4. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on October 9, 2015:
The plat, in 7 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line, through Range 38 1/2 East and a portion of Range 39 East, the south boundary, a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of certain mineral surveys and the independent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 1 South, Range 39 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 926, was accepted September 30, 2015. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
5. The Supplemental Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on December 2, 2015:
The supplemental plat, in 1 sheet, showing the amended lottings in section 17, Township 19 South, Range 60 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 960, was accepted November 30, 2015. This supplemental plat was prepared to accommodate the transfer of public lands to the State of Nevada, under provisions of Public Law 113-291.
The surveys and supplemental plat listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
As authorized under the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is giving notice that certain public lands near Twentynine Palms, California, will be temporarily closed to all public use to provide for public safety during the 2016 King of the Hammers Race Event.
Closure periods to all public use are January 31, 2016, through February 6, 2016.
Brian Bellew, (916) 978-4653, email:
This closure applies to all public use, including pedestrian use and vehicles. The public lands affected by this closure are described as follows:
The area described aggregates 71,065 acres, more or less, in San Bernardino County, California.
The closure notice and a map of the closure area will be posted at the Barstow Field Office and on the BLM Web site:
Exceptions: Closure restrictions do not apply to event officials, event participants, registered spectators, medical and rescue personnel, law enforcement, and agency personnel monitoring the events.
Enforcement: Any person who violates this closure may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571 and imprisoned for no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of California law.
43 CFR 8360.0-7 and 8364.1
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
To ensure we are able to consider your comments, we must receive them on or before March 11, 2016.
Please send your comments on the ICR to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
Samantha Towery, National Park Service, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80228; by fax at 303/987-6901; or via email at
The purpose of this information collection is to assist the NPS in managing the Commercial Use Authorization Program. Conducting commercial operations in a unit of the National Park System without a contract, permit, commercial use authorization, or some other written agreement is prohibited. Section 418, Public Law 105-391 (54 U.S.C. 101925) gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to authorize a private person, corporation, or other entity to provide services to visitors in units of the National Park System through a Commercial Use Authorization (CUA). Such authorizations are not considered concession contracts. We authorize commercial operations that originate and operate entirely within a park (in-park); commercial operations that provide services originating and terminating outside of the park boundaries; organized children's camps, outdoor clubs, and nonprofit institutions; and other uses as the
Section 418 limits CUAs to:
• Commercial operations with annual gross receipts of not more than $25,000 resulting from services originating and provided solely within a unit of the National Park System;
• Incidental use of resources of the unit by commercial operations which provide services originating and terminating outside of the boundaries of the unit; or
• Uses by organized children's camps, outdoor clubs and nonprofit institutions (including back country use) and such other uses as the Secretary determines appropriate.
The legislative mandate of the NPS, found at 54 U.S.C. 1100101, is to preserve America's natural wonders unimpaired for future generations, while also making them available for the enjoyment of visitors. Meeting this mandate requires the NPS to balance preservation with use. Maintaining a good balance requires both information and limits. The information requested will allow the unit manager to evaluate requests for a commercial use to determine impact on the resources and the appropriateness of the activity.
We collect information on the CUA Application (Form 10-550), the CUA Annual Report (Form 10-660), and CUA Monthly Report (Form 10-660A). We use the information from these forms to:
• Manage the program and operations.
• Determine the qualifications and abilities of the commercial operators to provide a high quality, safe, and enjoyable experience for park visitors.
• Determine the impact on the parks natural and cultural resources.
• Manage the use and impact of multiple operators.
The information requested will allow the NPS to evaluate requests for a commercial use authorization and determine the suitability of the applicants to safely and effectively provide an appropriate service to the visiting public. It will also enable the NPS to manage the activity in a manner that protects the natural and cultural resources and the park visitor. Management includes, but is not limited to, managing the number of permits issued, determining the location and time that the activity occurs, and requiring the appropriate visitor protections including insurance, equipment, training, and procedures.
Regulations resulting in information collection required for a Commercial Use Authorization:
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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 it will be done.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to adopt a remand recommended determination (“RRD”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) adding eleven (11) days to the total number of days enforcement respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (“uPI”) of Hsinchu, Taiwan, violated the August 13, 2010 consent order (“the Consent Order”). The Commission has adopted the RRD as a final determination of the Commission, issued a modified civil penalty order in the amount of $650,000 directed against uPI, and has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.
Clint Gerdine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission ordered this remand enforcement proceeding on April 8, 2015, in view of the Federal Circuit's decision in
On June 8, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued his enforcement initial determination (“EID”) finding a violation of the Consent Order by uPI. The ALJ found importation and sale of accused products that infringe all asserted claims of the patents at issue, and importation and sale of formerly accused products that contain or use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. He found that uPI's products developed after the consent order issued (“post-Consent Order products”) did not misappropriate Richtek's asserted trade secrets. Also, he recommended enforcement measures for uPI's violation that included the following: (1) Modifying the Consent Order to clarify that the Order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates, past, present, or future; and (2) imposing a civil penalty of $750,000 against uPI.
The Commission did not review the EID with respect to the trade secret allegations, but did review the EID as to certain patent infringement allegations and the number of violation days. On November 14, 2012, after review, the Commission determined to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part the EID's findings under review. The Commission affirmed the ALJ's finding that uPI violated the consent order, and imposed a civil penalty of $620,000 on respondent uPI for violation of the Consent Order on 62 days. The Commission also affirmed the ALJ's finding of direct infringement of claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the '190 patent with respect to uPI's formerly accused products. The Commission also vacated the ALJ's finding that uPI does not induce infringement of claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the 190 patent. The Commission also determined to reverse the ALJ's finding that claims 29 and 34 of the 470 patent are directly infringed by respondent uPI's accused DC-DC controllers and products containing the same, and determined that Richtek waived any allegations of indirect infringement with respect to the '470 patent. This action resulted in a finding of no violation of the Consent Order with respect to the '470 patent. Further, the Commission vacated as moot the portion of the EID relating to the '717 patent because the asserted claims 1-3 and 6-9 were cancelled by issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012. The Commission also affirmed the ALJ's finding that uPI's formerly accused products contained or used Richtek's asserted trade secrets to violate the Consent Order, but that uPI's post-Consent Order products did not misappropriate Richtek's asserted trade secrets.
Both uPI and Richtek timely appealed the Commission's final determination. The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the two appeals on September 25, 2014.
In its order of April 8, 2015, the Commission remanded the case to a presiding administrative law judge and ordered the presiding ALJ to:
The Commission has determined to adopt the RRD as a final determination of the Commission and has issued a modified civil penalty order in the amount of $650,000 directed against uPI. The Commission has rejected the arguments regarding the amount of the daily penalty made by Richtek in its submitted comments for the same reasons given in the Commission's Order denying Richtek's motion for reconsideration. The Commission has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 4, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Neology, Inc. of Poway, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on December 22, 2015. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency identification (“RFID”) products and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,325,044 (“the '044 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,587,436 (“the '436 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,119,664 (“the '664 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio frequency identification (“RFID”) products and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 13, 14, and 25 of the '044 patent; claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18 of the '436 patent; and claims 1, 2, 9-12, 14-18, and 26-28 of the '664 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Neology, Inc., 12760 Danielson Court, Suite A, Poway, CA 92064.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS, Inc., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Holding Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Technologies Holding Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., 6020 Ambler Drive, Mississauga, ON L4W 2P1, Canada.
Star Systems International, Ltd., Unit A01, 24/F Gold King Industrial Building, 35-41 Tai Lin Pai Road, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong.
STAR RFID Co., Ltd., 1 Charoenrat Road, Thung Wat Don, Sathon, Bangkok 10120 Thailand.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on December 3, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, AEGIS.net, Inc., Rockville, MD; Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM; Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, JAPAN; Bank of Zambia, Lusaka, ZAMBIA; Dunstan Thomas Consulting, Ltd., Portsmouth, UNITED KINGDOM; Front Metrics Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune, INDIA; Geco, Inc., Mesa, AZ; Inspur Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; IAB BVBA, Boutersem, BELGIUM; Intelligent Training de Columbia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; Joint Tactical Network Center, San Diego, CA; M J Anniss, Ltd., Nairn, UNITED KINGDOM; PLANAD Consultoria em Gestão Empreserial Ltda., São Paulo, BRAZIL; SIGMAXYZ Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; S.P. Jain Institute of Management Research, Mumbai, INDIA; Universidad Continental, Huancayo, PERU; University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH; Vencore, Inc., Lexington Park, MD; Vigillence, Inc., McLean, VA; and White Cloud Software Ltd., Bowen Island, CANADA, have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Architecture Capability Assurance Strategic Group, Palo Alto, CA; ATSI S.A., Zabierzow, POLAND; AXE, Inc., Nakagyo-ku, JAPAN; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Fort Worth, TX; CS Interactive Training, Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA; EXELIS, Inc., Clifton, NJ; Fairchild Controls Corporation, Frederick, MD; Hoople Limited, Hereford, UNITED KINGDOM; Howell Instruments, Inc., Fort Worth, TX; Indra Colombia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; Kamehameha Schools-Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Honolulu, HI; Korea Software Technology Association, Gyeonggi-Do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Mobile Reasoning, Inc., Lenaxa, KS; Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Online Business Systems, Winnepeg, CANADA; PreterLex Limited, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; University of Nordland, Oslo, NORWAY; VIP Apps Consulting Limited, Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and World Vision International, Monrovia, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, Hewlett Packard Company has changed its name to Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Cupertino, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 21, 1997, TOG filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 9, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before February 10, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before February 10, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 29, 2015, Sharp Clinical Services, Inc., 300 Kimberton Road, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460 applied to be registered as an importer of marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
The company plans to import finished pharmaceutical products containing cannabis extracts in dosage form for clinical trial studies.
This compound is listed under drug code 7360. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permits applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before February 10, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before February 10, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 9, 2015, Myoderm, 48 East Main Street, Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form for clinical trials, research, and analytical purposes.
The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances will be granted only for analytical testing, research, and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before February 10, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before February 10, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 1, 2015, Hospira, 1776 North Centennial Drive, McPherson, Kansas 67460-1247 applied to be registered as an importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import remifentanil for use in dosage form manufacturing. Placement of this drug code onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of registration.
Alltech Associates, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Alltech Associates, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated August 10, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Alltech Associates, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture high purity drug standards used for analytical applications only in clinical, toxicological, and forensic laboratories and for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before February 10, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before February 10, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and request for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 4, 2015, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-4417, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import opium raw (9600) and poppy straw concentrate (9670) to bulk manufacture other controlled substances for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import an intermediate form of tapentadol (9780) to bulk manufacture tapentadol (9780) for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import phenylacetone (8501) in bulk for the manufacture of a controlled substance.
Notice of registration.
IRIX Manufacturing, Inc. applied to be registered as a
By notice dated August 10, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of IRIX Manufacturing, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances synthetically as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for clinical trials.
Notice of registration.
Chattem Chemicals Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Chattem Chemicals Inc. registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated September 1, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Chattem Chemicals Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to bulk manufacture other controlled substances for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import an intermediate form of tapentadol (9780), to bulk manufacture tapentadol (9780) for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import phenylacetone (8501) in bulk for the manufacture of a controlled substance.
Notice of registration.
AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated June 25, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company is a contract manufacturer. In reference to Poppy Straw Concentrate the company will manufacture thebaine intermediates for sale to its customers for further manufacture. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Tracey Robertson, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at:
The collection is conducted in a manner consistent with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Desiree M. Dickinson, Industry Liaison, ATF Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, DOT.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Chris Casto by mail at Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
It is estimated that not more than 100 respondents will apply a year. Each application takes approximately 300 minutes.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Brecht Donoghue, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Sheila Hopkins, Program Manager, National Laboratory Center, 6000 Ammendale Road, Ammendale, MD 20705 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Larry Penninger, Jr., National Tracing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at telephone number of email: 1-800-788-7133 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 34,448 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Laurie O'Lena, Program Manager, ATF National Center for Explosives Training and Research Corporal Road, Bldg. 3750 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL 35898 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Desiree Dickinson, Industry Liaison, Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have additional comments on the estimated burden to facilities covered by the standards to comply with the regulation's reporting requirements, suggestions, or need additional information, please contact Gregory Joy, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
a. 128.5 × 25 minutes = 3,212.5 minutes/60 = 53.54 hours.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Shawn Stevens, Federal Explosives Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email or telephone number:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Carolyn King, Program Manager, Firearms Explosives Industry Division, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, at telephone number or email: 202-648-7825 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lynn Langton, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Chris Casto by mail at Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Joe Romano, Program Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226 at:
The collection is conducted in a manner consistent with 5 CFR 1320.6. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 11, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Chris Casto by mail at Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 10, 2016.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to John E. Strovers, Global Operations Section, CJIS Division Intelligence Group, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, (CJIS), Module D-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-2198. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There are approximately 4,635 (FY 2015) respondents at 45 minutes for the FD-961 Form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with this collection: There are approximately 3,476 hours, annual burden, associated with this information collection.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Christopher Reeves, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of November 9, 2015 through December 11, 2015.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act must be met.
(1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of November 9, 2015 through December 11, 2015. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than January 21, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than January 21, 2016.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request approval of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by March 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The primary objective of the new survey is to fill data gaps in the
The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) plans to conduct a pilot of the new Nonprofit Research Activities Survey (NPRA). NPRA will collect R&D and other related data from U.S. nonprofit organizations. This survey will collect the following:
• Total amount spent on R&D activities within nonprofit organizations,
• Number of employees and R&D employees,
• Sources of funds for R&D expenditures,
• Expenditures by field of R&D,
• Total amount of R&D funding provided to others outside the nonprofit organization,
• Types of recipients receiving R&D funding, and
• Funding by field of R&D.
The process of developing the questionnaire involved several major steps. First, at NSF's request, in February 2014 the Committee on National Statistics convened a steering committee on Measuring R&D Expenditures in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector. Second, NCSES (through its contractor) conducted 23 interviews with representatives of nonprofit organizations. Third, an expert panel was convened in September 2014 for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Confirmatory order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy, engaged in mediation as part of the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution Program which resulted in a settlement agreement as reflected in the Confirmatory Order (CO) related to Xcel Energy. The purpose of the CO is to ensure that the licensee restores compliance with NRC regulations.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0289 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Kenneth Lambert, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lisle, Illinois, 60532; telephone: 630-810-4376, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy, (Licensee) is the holder of Reactor Operating License No. DPR-22 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on October 15, 2015.
On December 18, 2013, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), Region III Field Office initiated an investigation (OI Case No. 3-2014-004) to determine whether two contractor technicians at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant deliberately failed to perform nondestructive examinations (NDEs) on the Dry Shielded Canisters (DSCs) in accordance with procedural requirements, and to determine whether they falsified records when recording the NDE results. The results of the investigation, completed on November 13, 2014, were sent to Xcel Energy in a letter dated July 23, 2015 (ML15203B187). Based on the review of the OI investigation report the NRC determined that both contractor technicians willfully violated 10 CFR 72.158, “Control of special processes,” and 10 CFR 72.11, “Completeness and accuracy of information.” In addition, the NRC determined the licensee violated Title 10 CFR 72.154(c),
Specifically, on October 17, 2013, an NRC inspector observed, by video display, the NDE liquid penetrant testing (PT) of the outer top cover plate weld for DSCs being conducted by a contractor technician. The inspector believed that the technician failed to comply with procedural requirements in conducting the PT. The inspector reviewed the procedure, confirmed that the PT was not being performed in accordance with the procedure, and notified Monticello management. Monticello management and the NDE contractor management reviewed the video, and concluded the PT was not performed properly. Upon further review, the NRC inspector determined that two contractor NDE technicians were involved in performing the PT examinations. These individuals were involved with examining a total of 66 welds on six DSCs.
Based on the evidence gathered in the OI investigation, the NRC determined that the two NDE contractors deliberately violated NRC requirements by failing to perform NDE PT of DSCs, a special process, in accordance with procedures by not allowing the developer to dwell for the period of time specified in procedure 12751 QP-9.202, Rev. 1, “Color Contrast Liquid Penetrant Examination using the Solvent-Removable Method.” Their actions caused the licensee to be in violation of Certificate of Compliance 1004, Amendment 10, Technical Specification 1.2.5, “DSC Dye Penetrant Tests of Closure Welds,” which was implemented by the procedure, and 10 CFR 72.158, as NDE testing, a special process, was not accomplished in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements.
The NRC further determined that the two contractors willfully violated NRC requirements by recording false information concerning developer dwell times on the PT examination report for each NDE. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.11(a), which requires information required to be maintained by the licensee to be complete and accurate in all material respects.
The NRC also determined the licensee failed to assess the effectiveness of the controls of quality by the contractors. Specifically, the licensee did not adequately monitor the work of the contractors performing PT testing on DSCs No. 11 through 16. This caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 72.154(c), “Control of purchased material, equipment, and services,” which required, in part, that licensees assess the effectiveness of the control of quality by contractors and subcontractors at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and quantity of the product or services.
In response to the NRC's offer, Xcel Energy requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. On October 15, 2015, Xcel Energy and the NRC met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution.
During the ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. This Confirmatory Order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement, as signed by both parties, consisted of the following:
1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier.
2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety (DNMS), Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR part 72.
3. Within 180 calendar days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed.
4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds.
5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order.
6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (
7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and shall make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation.
8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal.
9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied.
In addition to the elements described above, Xcel Energy took the following corrective actions:
1. Xcel Energy revised its nuclear fleet Nuclear Oversight (“NOS”) and Supply Chain procedures to require the establishment of a NOS Project Oversight Plan for any Safety-Related or Augmented Quality fabrication or construction activities performed at the nuclear plant sites under a supplier's Quality Assurance (QA) Program. The NOS procedure for project oversight was also revised to address site project implementation in addition to project component fabrication, and associated project risks. Upfront planning of the level and type NOS oversight is based on those risks.
2. Xcel Energy created a nuclear fleet procedure for oversight of supplemental personnel (
3. Xcel Energy issued a rapid operational experience notice for this event, which prompted a review of the event by Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant staff and shared the event with the nuclear industry through a process called the INPO Consolidated Event System (ICES).
4. Xcel Energy reviewed its General Access Training to ensure it addresses the consequences of willful violations.
In exchange for the commitments and corrective actions taken by the licensee, the NRC agrees to the following conditions:
1. The NRC will consider the Confirmatory Order as an escalated enforcement action for a period of one year from its issuance date.
2. The NRC will refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation and a proposed imposition of a civil penalty.
This agreement is binding upon the successors and assigns of Xcel Energy.
On December 10, 2015, Xcel Energy consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. Xcel Energy further agreed that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order and that it has waived its right to a hearing.
Since the licensee agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
I find that Xcel Energy's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Xcel Energy's commitments be confirmed by this Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Xcel Energy's consent, this Confirmatory Order is effective 30 calendar days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE TAKEN AT MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT AND OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS IN XCEL ENERGY'S FLEET WHERE INDICATED AND THAT LICENSE NO. DPR-22 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT:
1. The licensee shall restore compliance to 10 CFR part 72 to DSCs 11 through 16 within 5 years of the date the NRC takes final action upon the September 29, 2015, exemption request pending for DSC 16 (ML15275A023), or the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier.
2. Within 180 calendar days of the NRC's final action on the docketed exemption request dated September 29, 2015 (ML15275A023), or the date the exemption request is withdrawn, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall submit a project plan to the Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, for returning DSCs 11 through 16 to compliance to 10 CFR part 72.
3. Within 180 days after submittal of the DSCs 11 through 16 project plan, Xcel Energy shall submit a letter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, regarding progress under the plan, and any non-editorial changes to the plan. A letter providing a progress update and any non-editorial plan changes shall be provided every 360 calendar days thereafter to the Director, DNMS, Region III, until the plan is completed.
4. Within 90 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall evaluate Monticello's dry fuel storage procedures and ensure the procedures require direct licensee oversight during the entire evolution of each dye penetrant test performed by contractors on DSC closure welds.
5. Within 120 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall ensure and document that all first line supervisors and above, who oversee contractors performing field work in the Xcel Energy nuclear fleet, review the circumstances and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order.
6. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, the licensee shall assess and document the effectiveness of improvements in oversight of supplemental workers (
7. Within 540 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall develop and make a presentation based on the facts and lessons learned from the events that gave rise to the Confirmatory Order, with emphasis on corrective actions taken as a result. Xcel Energy agrees to make this presentation at an appropriate industry forum such that industry personnel across the entirety of the United States would have the opportunity to receive the material. Xcel Energy shall inform the Director, DNMS, Region III, of where the presentation will be made, and make the presentation materials available to the NRC for review at least 30 calendar days in advance of the presentation.
8. Within 360 calendar days of the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit an article to an industry publication, such as UxC Spent Fuel, describing the circumstances of the violation, the root and contributing causes, and the corrective actions. The licensee shall provide a draft to the Director, DNMS, Region III, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the submittal.
9. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Xcel Energy shall submit to the NRC a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied.
The Regional Administrator, Region III, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Xcel Nuclear, may request a hearing within 30 days of the issuance date of this Confirmatory Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue a separate Order designating the time and place of any hearings, as appropriate. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to a Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On January 4, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a modification to the existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service asserts that the modification revises a few articles and replaces Annex 1 to the agreement.
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 12, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2015-75 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 12, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
BX is proposing change to amend BX Rule 4780, which governs the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program (“Retail Program”), to distinguish between retail orders routed on behalf of other broker-dealers and retail orders that are routed on behalf of introduced retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis, as further described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4780, which governs the Exchange's Retail Program,
The Exchange established the Retail Program in an attempt to attract retail order flow to the Exchange, primarily by offering pricing incentives. Under the Retail Program, Retail Member
Exchange Rule 4780(b)(1) currently states that “[t]o qualify as a Retail Member Organization, a Member must conduct a retail business or
As background with respect to the proposed change, the Exchange first would like to describe the terms “introducing broker”, “carrying firm” or “carrying broker-dealer”, and “fully disclosed,” as such terms are commonly used in the securities industry. An “introducing” broker-dealer is “one that has a contractual arrangement with another firm, known as the carrying or clearing firm, under which the carrying firm agrees to perform certain services for the introducing firm. Usually, the introducing firm submits its customer accounts and customer orders to the carrying firm, which executes the orders and carries the account. The carrying firm's duties include the proper disposition of the customer funds and securities after the trade date, the custody of customer securities and funds, and the recordkeeping associated with carrying customer accounts.”
Further, a “fully disclosed” introducing arrangement is “distinguished from an omnibus clearing arrangement where the clearing firm maintains one account for all the customer transactions of the introducing firm. In an omnibus relationship, the clearing firm does not know the identity of the customers of the introducing firm. In a fully disclosed clearing arrangement, the clearing firm knows the names, addresses, securities positions and other relevant data as to each customer.”
With respect to a broker-dealer that is routing on behalf of another broker-dealer, the Exchange does not believe that the routing broker-dealer has sufficient information to assess whether orders are truly retail in nature, and thus, requires an RMO routing on behalf of other broker-dealers to maintain additional supervisory procedures and obtain annual attestations, as described below, in order to submit Retail Orders to the Exchange. In contrast, however, if a broker-dealer is carrying a customer account on a fully disclosed basis, then such carrying broker-dealer is required to perform certain diligence regarding such account that the Exchange believes is sufficient to assess whether a customer is a retail customer in order to submit orders on behalf of such a customer to the Exchange as a Retail Order. The carrying broker of an account typically handles orders from its retail customers that are “introduced” by an introducing broker. However, as noted above, in contrast to a typical routing relationship on behalf of another broker- dealer, a carrying broker does obtain a significant level of information regarding each customer introduced by the introducing broker. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to state in BX Rule 4780(b)(1) that for purposes of BX Rule 4780, “conducting a retail business shall include carrying retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis.”
BX Rule 4780(b)(6) currently states, in part, that “[i]f a Retail Member Organization represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer customer, the Retail Member Organization's supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order.” This includes obtaining attestations from the other broker-dealers for whom the RMO routes. In addition to the proposed changes to BX Rule 4780(b)(1) described above, the Exchange proposes to modify the language of BX Rule 4780(b)(6) to again distinguish between an RMO that conducts a retail business because it carries accounts on a fully disclosed basis from an RMO that routes orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. As proposed, the additional attestation requirements of BX Rule 4780(b)(6) would apply to an RMO that does not itself conduct a retail business but routes Retail Orders on behalf of other broker-dealers. In turn, such attestation requirements would not apply to an RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis. In connection with this change, the Exchange is proposing various edits to the existing rule text so that the reference is consistently to “other broker-dealers” rather than “broker-dealer customers.”
The Exchange believes that allowing an RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to submit Retail Orders to the Exchange without obtaining attestations from broker-dealers that might introduce such accounts will encourage participation in the Retail Program. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the carrying broker has sufficient information to itself confirm that orders are Retail Orders without such attestations. The Exchange still believes it is necessary to require the attestation by broker-dealers that route Retail Orders on behalf of other broker- dealers, because, in contrast, such broker-dealers typically do not have a relationship with the retail customer and would not be in position to confirm that such customers are in fact retail customers.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it will allow RMOs that carry retail customer accounts to participate in the Program without imposing additional attestation requirements that the Exchange did not initially intend to impose upon them. By removing impediments to participation in the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail customers to the Program.
BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange believes that the amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the Program, will increase the level of competition around retail executions. The Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the Program on an exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors and benefits retail investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to encompass practices currently allowed on non-exchange venues.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (F) to Rule 4752(d)(2), concerning the opening process.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to enhance the price protections provided by Rule 4752(d) in the operation of Nasdaq Opening Cross, Nasdaq's process for opening the market for trading System securities.
Rule 4752 concerns Nasdaq's opening process and paragraph (d) of the rule sets forth the processing of the Opening Cross. Specifically, the rule provides that the Opening Cross is initiated at 9:30 a.m. ET, at which time the System attempts to open a security at the price that maximizes the number of shares of MOO,
When the Opening Cross price is calculated, Nasdaq applies a boundary within which the cross must execute to ensure that the price derived does not exceed a price reasonably tied to the prevailing market at the time. Specifically, Nasdaq applies a percentage based threshold (“Threshold Percentage”) to a benchmark (“Benchmark Value”) that, when applied to an individual security, determines the price range that a security may cross (“Threshold Range”), outside of which the opening price of a security may not occur.
The Threshold Percentage and Benchmark Value are set by Nasdaq officials in advance and communicated to Participants.
The current price adjustment process under Rule 4752(d)(2)(E) is effective at ensuring the opening price of a security is within a certain range of the QBBO immediately prior to the initiation of the cross in the security; however, the current process does not prevent a cross from occurring at an erroneous price caused by an order or quote entered into the continuous pre-market trading book by a Participant in error that significantly skews the Opening Cross price of a security. This scenario could cause the QBBO to be excessively wide, with one side of the bid/offer significantly distant from the normal range and not representative of the true interest in the security. Nonetheless, the price adjustment process under Rule 4752(d)(2)(E) would allow the Opening Cross price to be set at an erroneous level because it would set the Benchmark Value at the midpoint between the erroneously-priced side of the market and the non-erroneously priced contra side. To illustrate, assume an extreme example as follows: if a security has a bid of $10 set by an Order to buy 100 shares at $10 in pre-market trading with no offer interest until 9:29 a.m., when a Participant erroneously enters an Order to sell 100 shares at $1100, under the current opening process the Benchmark Value of that security would be the midpoint price of $555, which would create a threshold range of $0.0001 by $1155.50.
Nasdaq is proposing an additional price protection process designed to avoid mispriced Opening Crosses and the use of the clearly erroneous post-trade nullification process. Once a security has an Opening Cross price set based on the process under Rule 4752(d)(2)(A)-(E), Nasdaq will require the security to pass at least one of three new “tests” in order for the Opening Cross to occur. If a security does not pass any of the three tests no Opening Cross will occur in that security, all Orders in the Opening Cross
The three new tests compare the Opening Cross price as calculated under the current rule to a reference price to ensure that the Opening Cross price is reasonably related to the market and not the product of erroneous Order entry. The reference price range is calculated under each test by applying a threshold set by Nasdaq officials in advance and communicated to Participants (“Price Test Thresholds”). The Price Test Thresholds, like the current Threshold Percentage, will be published via Nasdaq's public NasdaqTrader Web site. Nasdaq may apply different Price Test Thresholds to each of the Opening Cross Price Tests. The Price Test Threshold is applied to different measures under each of the new tests to calculate the range within which the Opening Cross price must fall to pass the test (“Price Test Threshold Range”). Nasdaq is initially setting each of the Price Test Thresholds uniformly at the greater of $0.50 or 10%; however, Nasdaq may adjust the Price Test Thresholds independently of one another.
Opening Cross Price Test A requires the Opening Cross price of a Nasdaq listed security, other than newly-listed Exchange Traded Products (“ETPs”), to be within a Price Test Threshold Range established by adding and subtracting the Price Test Threshold from the security's prior day Nasdaq Official Closing Price (“NOCP”). Non-Nasdaq listed securities must have an Opening Cross price within a Price Test Threshold Range established by adding and subtracting the Price Test Threshold from the security's prior day consolidated closing price. Unlike newly-listed company stocks that begin trading at some point after the stock market has opened, newly-listed ETPs usually begin trading in the premarket session prior to regular market hours trading on the security's initial day of trading and do not have a prior day's consolidated closing price. For such securities, the Price Test Threshold Range is established by adding and subtracting the Price Test Threshold from the offering price. If the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is higher or lower than the Price Test Threshold Range established under this test, or if a non-ETP Nasdaq listed security does not have a previous day's closing price,
Opening Cross Price Test B requires the Opening Cross price of a security to be within a Price Test Threshold Range established by adding and subtracting the Price Test Threshold from the security's Nasdaq last sale (either round or odd lot) occurring after 9:15 a.m. ET but prior to the Opening Cross. If the Opening Cross price is higher or lower than the Price Test Threshold Range established under this test, or if there is no Nasdaq last sale,
Opening Cross Price Test C requires the Opening Cross price to fall within the Price Test Threshold Range established by adding and subtracting the Price Test Threshold from the Nasdaq best bid (for Opening Cross prices that would be higher than the security's closing price as established in Test A) or Nasdaq best offer (for opening cross prices that would be lower than the security's closing price as established in Test A). For purposes of this test, if a security does not have a NOCP or consolidated closing price, as applicable, for the previous trading day Nasdaq will use a price of $0. If the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is higher or lower than the Opening Cross price range established under this test all Orders in the Opening Cross
Using the example above where the QBBO is $10 × $11 and Opening Price Range is $8.95 to $12.05, if the Opening Cross price is calculated to be $10.50 then the security would move on to the Opening Cross eligibility test process. Under Opening Cross Price Test A, if the security had a NOCP of $12.50 then the Price Test Threshold used would be 10% (10% of $12.50 = $1.25, which is greater than $0.50) and the Price Test Threshold Range would be $11.25 to $13.75 ($12.50−$1.25 = $11.25 and
Under Opening Cross Price Test B, if the last sale at 9:20 a.m. is $11.90, the Price Test Threshold would be 10% (10% of $11.90 = $1.19, which is greater than $0.50) and the Price Test Threshold Range would be $10.71 to $13.09 ($11.90 − $1.19 = $10.71 and $11.90 + $1.19 = $13.09). Because the Opening Cross price is less than the lower threshold ($10.50 < $10.71), the security fails Opening Cross Price Test B and Opening Cross Price Test C is performed.
Under Opening Cross Price Test C, since the Opening Cross price is lower than the NOCP ($10.50 < $12.50), the QBBO offer price of $11 would be used to calculate the Price Test Threshold Range, which would result in a Price Test Threshold of 10% (10% of $11 = $1.10, which is greater than $0.50) and a Price Test Threshold Range of $9.90 to $12.10 ($11 − $1.10 = $9.90 and $11 + $1.10 = $12.10). Because the Opening Cross price is within the Price Test Threshold Range, the security passes the test and the Opening Cross may proceed.
Accordingly, these new protections will mitigate situations in which the Opening Cross price may be erroneous. As a result, the changes will support fair and orderly markets.
Nasdaq is proposing to implement the proposed change in a measured approach over the course of approximately four weeks. Although Nasdaq does not foresee any technical issues with implementation of the proposed changes, they affect a fundamental process in the operation of an orderly market. As a result, the Exchange believes it should implement the changes in stages. The Exchange will use a rollout schedule that will start with a small number of securities (
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change will promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will implement a process designed to prevent Opening Crosses to occur [sic] at erroneous prices. As explained, under the current process an erroneous order or quote may significantly skew the current Benchmark Value that is used to create a boundary for the Opening Cross Price. This may then lead to the Opening Cross price would result [sic] in a temporary price dislocation from normal pricing and typically the use of the clearly erroneous trade nullification process under Rule 11890.
The Exchange considers that a better approach is to implement a system of tests, as proposed herein, that would not allow an erroneous order or quote affect the opening of a security. The proposed change, moreover, would mitigate the likelihood of an erroneous execution occurring in the Opening Cross, since all Orders in the Opening Cross would be cancelled. There would be no need then to use the clearly erroneous trade nullification process because no such trade would occur. Thus, the proposed rule change also protects investors, by avoiding erroneous transactions, which are disruptive to individual investors and the market overall.
The proposal also promotes just and equitable principles of trade and further perfects mechanism of fair and orderly markets in that it promotes transparency and uniformity in handling erroneous trades in the Opening Cross.
Finally, implementing the proposed changes in a phased approach promotes just and equitable principles of trade, further improves participating [sic] in fair and orderly markets, and serves to protect investors because it will limit the potential disruption to the market to a subset of the total number of securities in the opening cross should the Exchange experience a technical issue with the implementation.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change implicates any competitive issues. The proposed change implements changes that will benefit all market participants by avoiding Opening Prices that are not reasonably related to bona fide market interest. Avoiding such prices will ensure that the information on which market participants make investment decisions is accurate and representative of investors' interest. As such, the proposed changes should not place a burden on competition whatsoever.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Appendix F requires a broker-dealer choosing to register, upon Commission approval, as an OTC derivatives dealer to develop and maintain an internal risk management system based on Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) models. It is anticipated that a total of one (1) broker-dealer registering as an OTC derivatives dealer will spend 1,000 hours on a one-time basis complying with the system development requirements of Rule 15c3-1f, for an estimated one-time initial startup burden of approximately 1,000 hours. Appendix F also requires the OTC derivatives dealer to maintain its system model according to certain prescribed standards. It is anticipated that the four (4) OTC derivatives dealers currently registered with the Commission will each spend 1,000 hours per year maintaining the system model required by Rule 15c3-1f, for an estimated recurring annual burden of approximately 4,000 hours. It is anticipated that the one (1) broker-dealer registering as an OTC derivatives dealer will spend 1,000 hours maintaining the system model required by Rule 15c3-1f in each year following its registration. Thus, the total industry-wide burden is estimated to be approximately 5,000 hours (4,000 hours + 1,000 hours) for the first year and 5,000 hours for each subsequent year.
The records required to be kept pursuant to Appendix F and results of periodic reviews conducted pursuant to Rule 15c3-4 generally must be preserved under Rule 17a-4 of the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-4) for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. The Commission will not generally publish or make available to any person notices or reports received pursuant to the Rule. The statutory basis for the Commission's refusal to disclose such information to the public is the exemption contained in Section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), which essentially provides that the requirement of public dissemination does not apply to commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively, “Underlying Funds”) that are within and outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o JoAnn Strasser, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, 41 South High Street, Suite 1700, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Kaitlin C. Bottock, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8658, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) a Fund
2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
ISE proposes to codify, in the Supplementary Material to Rule 313 Registration Requirements, the categories of registration and respective qualification examinations required for individual associated persons (“associated persons”) that engage in the securities activities of members on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) replace the Proprietary Trader registration category and the Series 56 Proprietary Trader registration qualification examination with the newly codified Securities Trader category of registration and the Series 57 Securities Trader registration qualification examination for Securities Traders respectively and (2) replace the Proprietary Trader Principal registration category with the newly codified registration category of Securities Trader Principal and require Securities Trader Principals to take the Series 57 qualification examination in addition to the Series 24 qualification examination. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 604, Continuing Education for Registered Persons, by deleting the rule text referring to the S501 continuing education program currently applicable to Proprietary Traders and replacing it with the S101, and replacing a reference to the Series 56 with the 57. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered persons take the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons. Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 604 to provide for Web-based delivery of the continuing education regulatory element for registered persons. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 313 Registration Requirements. This amendment will replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category and qualification examination (Series 56) with the newly codified Securities Trader (TD) registration category and qualification examination (Series 57). In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader Principal (TP) registration category for associated persons who either: (i) Supervise or monitor proprietary trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers; (ii) supervise or train those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with respect to those activities; and/or (iii) are officers, partners or directors of a member, as described in paragraph in proposed paragraph (a) to .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313. The Exchange also proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category for Chief Compliance Officers (or individuals performing similar functions) of a member or member organization. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-015 and 2015-017, and SR-C2-2015-027.
Currently, Rule 313 requires, among other things, an associated person engaged or to be engaged in the securities business of a member to register with the Exchange in the category of registration appropriate to the function to be performed and to pass the qualification examination appropriate to the category of registration as prescribed by the Exchange. Among the qualification and registration requirements set forth by the Exchange, an associated person who engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer must register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader (PT) in WebCRD.
.07 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313 further requires that an associated person with supervisory responsibility over proprietary trading activities or who is an (i) officer; (ii) partner; (iii) director; (iv) supervisor of proprietary trading, market-making or brokerage activities; and/or (v) supervisor of those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making or brokerage activities with respect to those activities is required to register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) in WebCRD and satisfy prerequisite registration and qualification requirements, including, but not limited to passing the Series 24 General Securities Principal
The Exchange proposes to replace the Series 56 qualification examination with the newly codified Series 57 qualification examination for those registration categories where the Series 56 is currently an acceptable qualification standard. Specifically, with respect to the Proprietary Trader registration, the Exchange proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader (TD) registration category as well as eliminate the current Series 56 Proprietary Trader Exam prerequisite and, instead, include a Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination in its place.
The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular. Currently, the Exchange intends for the effective date to be January 4, 2016. Under the proposed rule, associated persons who have passed the Proprietary Trader (Series 56) qualification examination and who have registered as a Proprietary Trader (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, and associated persons who have passed the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, would be grandfathered as Securities Traders (TDs) without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other action, provided that the associated person's registration has not been revoked by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have passed between the date that the associated person last registered as a Proprietary Trader (PT) and the effective date. After the effective date, an associated person would need to pass the new Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination and register as a Securities Trader (TD).
In addition, associated persons who have either passed the Proprietary Trader (PT) qualification examination or the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, and who have also passed the General Securities Principal (Series 24) qualification examination (or have completed any of the alternative acceptable qualifications requirements as defined in new .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313) and who have also registered as Proprietary Trader Principals (TP) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, would be eligible to register as Securities Trader Principals (TPs), provided that the associated person's registration has not been revoked by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have passed between the date that the associated person last registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) and the date they register as a Securities Trader Principal (TP).
Persons registered in the new category would be subject to the continuing education requirements of Rule 604 Continuing Education for Registered Persons. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 604 by removing the option for Series 56 registered persons to participate in the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program in order to satisfy the Regulatory Element. The S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program is being phased out along with the Series 56 Proprietary Trader qualification examination. As a result, effective January 4, 2016, the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons will cease to exist. In place of the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56 registered persons, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered persons be permitted to enroll in the S101 General Program for Series 7 and all other registered persons.
The Exchange further proposes to provide for Web-based delivery of the Continuing Education Regulatory Element for registered persons. As proposed, Rule 604 would specify that the Continuing Education Regulatory Element set forth in the rule will be administered through Web-based delivery or such other technological manner and format as specified by the Exchange from and after January 4, 2016. Most registered persons currently complete the Regulatory Element in a test center and the remainder do so in-house. Given the advances in Web-based technology, the Exchange believes that there is diminishing utility in the test center and in-house Continuing Education delivery methods. The Exchange notes that the Web-based format will include safeguards to authenticate the identity of the Continuing Education Candidate. Moreover, according to FINRA, registered persons have raised concerns with the current test center delivery
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange further believes its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Implementation of the proposed changes to ISE's registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for associated persons and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate associated persons, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations. Finally, the proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the thirty-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative as of January 4, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the thirty day delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will enable the Exchange to have the new requirements in effect at the same time as the other SROs. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the thirty-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative as of January 4, 2016.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to make two changes to Rule 7014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to make two changes to Rule 7014. Rule 7014 provides the Exchange's Market Quality Incentive Programs. Nasdaq currently provides the following incentive programs under the rule: Investor Support Program, Qualified Market Maker Program, Lead Market Maker Program, and NBBO Program. The Exchange is proposing to add new rule text concerning what is not considered eligible displayed liquidity under the Investor Support Program and to add clarifying rule text to the NBBO Program.
First, the Exchange is adding new rule text to the Investor Support Program (“ISP”) under rule 7014(b) to state that Designated Retail Orders
Second, Nasdaq is proposing to add clarifying rule text to Rule 7014(g), which concerns the NBBO Program. The NBBO Program provides rebates per share executed with respect to all other displayed orders (other than Designated Retail Orders) in securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity and establish the NBBO. When Nasdaq adopted the rule, it neglected to note that the displayed quantity of the NBBO Program-qualifying order must be at least one round lot at the time of execution. An odd lot order of less than
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to the ISP Program is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The current Sponsors of the OLPP are Amex, BATS, BOX, BX, CBOE, C2, ISE, MIAX, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, OCC, Phlx, and Topaz. The proposed amendment to the OLPP would add EDGX as a Sponsor of the OLPP. A national securities exchange may become a Sponsor if it satisfies the requirement of Section 7 of the OLPP. Specifically an Eligible Exchange
Section 7(ii) of the OLPP sets forth the process by which an Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the OLPP. Specifically, an Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the OLPP with the only change being the addition of the new sponsor's name in Section 8 of the OLPP;
The foregoing proposed OLPP amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed amendment 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22 to describe a new market data product known as IPO Auction Viewer. The proposed rule change is based on Nasdaq Stock Market LLC's (“Nasdaq”) Rule 7015(j).
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.22 describing a new market data product known as IPO Auction Viewer, which would be provided free of charge. IPO Auction Viewer would be a data feed that is available to designated associated persons of a Member
IPO Auction Viewer would assist Members who are acting as a Stabilizing Agent in monitoring the orders they have entered for execution in the auction process for an IPO Security. The auction process under Exchange Rule 11.23(d) is designed to provide an orderly, single priced opening of securities subject to an intra-day halt, including securities that are the subject of an IPO. Prior to the execution of the auction process for an IPO Security (“IPO Auction”), Members enter orders eligible for participation in the IPO Auction, and the Exchange disseminates certain information regarding buying and selling interest and indicative execution price information. The quotation only period with respect to an IPO Auction currently commences fifteen (15) minutes plus a short random period prior to the IPO Auction (“Quote-Only Period”).
As discussed above, the Stabilizing Agent has responsibility for monitoring the submission of buying and selling interest into the IPO Auction and informing the Exchange when the IPO Security is ready to initiate trading. Thus, the Stabilizing Agent stands ready
Access to the IPO Auction Viewer will be limited through a secure entitlement process to designated individuals employed by the Stabilizing Agent. On the day of an IPO, beginning with the start of the Quote-Only Period described in Exchange Rule 11.23(d)(1)(A) and ending upon the completion of the IPO Auction for an IPO Security, the IPO Auction Viewer will display aggregated buying and selling interest information for the IPO Security, reflecting all orders on the BATS Book, and consisting of the aggregate size of all orders at each permissible price level. The aggregated information provided through this data element would include all Eligible Auction Orders
The IPO Auction Viewer will provide no information other than that described above, unless the Exchange submits a proposed rule change to add additional data to it. In particular, the IPO Auction Viewer will not provide any information regarding Eligible Auction Orders other than in the aggregated format described above, and will not provide any information regarding the identity of Members posting orders. The Exchange believes that providing this information to the Stabilizing Agent will provide the Stabilizing Agent with insights into the scope of demand for, and supply of, the IPO Security, in a manner that will allow it to make more informed decisions about the appropriate time to initiate the opening of the IPO Security through the IPO Auction. In addition, the information will allow the Stabilizing Agent to respond in a more informed way to questions from its customers and other participants regarding expectations that an Order to buy or sell with a stated price and size may be executable in the IPO Auction. Finally, the information will assist the Stabilizing Agent in making decisions about the appropriate level of capital to commit to support the IPO Security once trading commences.
Once the IPO Auction executes, the IPO Auction Viewer will cease to be available, both with respect to the state of the BATS Book during the continuous market and with respect to retrospective information about the state of the BATS Book leading up to the IPO Auction. Thus, the Stabilizing Agent will not be provided with any information not available to other market participants once continuous market trading in the IPO Security commences.
Since the aggregated information provided through the IPO Auction Viewer is unique and directly available only to the Stabilizing Agent, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adopt safeguards in order to ensure that the aggregated information is not misused.
• Restrict electronic access
• Except as may be required for purposes of maintaining books and records for regulatory purposes, prevent the retention of aggregated information following the completion of the IPO Auction for the IPO Security; and
• Prevent persons with access to aggregated information from engaging in transactions in the IPO Security other than transactions in the IPO Auction; transactions on behalf of a customer; or Stabilizing. Thus, for example, the Stabilizing Agent or its affiliates would not be permitted to use the information to engage in proprietary trading other than in support of bona fide Stabilizing activity.
However, for the avoidance of doubt regarding appropriate uses of the aggregated information, the proposed rule will also provide that nothing contained in the rule shall be construed to prohibit the Member acting as the Stabilizing Agent from (i) engaging in Stabilizing consistent with that role, or (ii) using the information provided from the IPO Auction Viewer to respond to inquiries from any person, including, without limitation, other Members, customers, or associated persons of the Stabilizing Agent, regarding the expectations of the Member acting as the Stabilizing Agent with regard to the possibility of executing stated quantities of an IPO Security at stated prices in the IPO Auction.
The aggregated information provided through the IPO Auction Viewer will be available solely for display on the screen of a computer for which an entitlement has been provided by the Exchange. Under no circumstances may a Member redirect aggregated information to another computer or reconfigure it for use in a non-displayed format, including, without limitation, in any trading algorithm. If a Member becomes aware of any violation of the restrictions contained in the proposed rule, it must report the violation promptly to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will promote the goals of the Act by assisting the
The Exchange further believes that the restrictions it proposes to impose on the use of the IPO Auction Viewer will protect against possible misuse of the provided information. Notably, the information will be provided only prior to the completion of the IPO Auction and may not be retained thereafter, except to the extent necessary for record-retention purposes. The information will be disseminated in a display format only and may not be redirected or reconfigured for non-display usage (such as usage by a trading algorithm). Moreover, electronic access to the information will be available only to certain designated individuals with a role in conducting Stabilizing activities, and persons with access may not engage in transactions other than Stabilizing or transactions in the IPO Auction or on behalf of a customer. The Exchange further believes that the safeguards it proposes around the use of such aggregated information by its Members will provide added assurance to Members and the investing public that the IPO Auction Viewer will not be misused.
In addition, the Exchange notes that although the IPO Auction Viewer will be available only to Stabilizing Agents, this limitation is consistent with the protection of investors because the Stabilizing Agent plays a unique role on the day of an IPO because it must decide when the IPO Security should commence trading and must commit capital in support of the IPO Security once trading begins. Because the IPO Auction Viewer will assist the Stabilizing Agent in performing these functions, which are performed by no other broker, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to limit access to the IPO Auction Viewer to the Stabilizing Agent. Moreover, because the IPO Auction Viewer will cease to be available once regular trading in the IPO Security commences and the information provided therein will quickly become stale, the Exchange does not believe that access to the information will provide the Stabilizing Agent with any unfair advantage.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to add certain defined terms to Rule 11.22(l) is consistent with the Act because the definitions are intended to promote a clear understanding of the rule text by delineating the products addressed by the rule and the scope of activities to which they pertain. The Exchange further believes that the proposal to make the IPO Auction Viewer available to eligible recipients at no charge is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposed IPO Auction Viewer is based on Nasdaq's IPO Book Viewer, which was recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange views these differences as immaterial because the Exchange does not believe that either distinction would provide an inappropriate level of detail but rather that these differences are simply the result of different designs. Notwithstanding these differences, the Exchange believes the proposed IPO Auction Viewer would provide the Stabilizing Agent the necessary information to: (i) Enable greater participation in the IPO Auction because it will be able to provide more certain information about the ability of investors to execute orders at particular sizes and prices; (ii) compare potential interest in participating in the IPO Auction, enabling it to determine with more certainty the appropriate time to allow the IPO Auction to execute; and (iii) make more informed decisions about the extent of capital it may need to commit after the commencement of trading in order to stabilize the price of the IPO Security and thereby dampen volatility.
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 by being able to share aggregated information with other Members and customers, the Stabilizing Agent will enable greater participation in the IPO Auction because it will be able to provide more certain information about the ability of investors to execute orders at particular sizes and prices, thus increasing competition. In addition, given that the proposal will result in a Stabilizing Agent's usage of the information being subject to greater restrictions, the Exchange does not believe that there can be any reasonable objection to the proposal on competitive grounds.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend Rule 12.3 by extending the Credit Option Margin Pilot Program through January 17, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On February 2, 2011, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposal to establish a Credit Option Margin Pilot Program (“Program”).
On January 17, 2012, the Exchange filed a rule change to, among other things, decouple the Program with the FINRA program and to extend the expiration date of the Program to January 17, 2013.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will further the purposes of the Act because, consistent with the goals of the Commission at the initial adoption of the program, the margin requirements set forth by the proposed rule change will help to stabilize the financial markets. In addition, the proposed rule change is substantially similar to existing FINRA Rule 4240.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
In its filing the Exchange requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period after which a proposed rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) becomes effective. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program prior to its expiration on January 15, 2016.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and public interest, as it will allow for the least amount of market disruption as the pilot will continue without interruption. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq is proposing to amend Nasdaq Rule 7015 to clarify the connectivity options and application of the fees assessed thereunder.
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 and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 7015 provides the charges Nasdaq assesses for equity securities market connectivity to systems operated by Nasdaq. Nasdaq is amending Rule 7015 in seven ways: (1) To clarify how Rule 7015 applies to FINRA systems; (2) to clarify the term “port pair”; (3) to clarify QIX protocol connectivity options; (4) to clarify FIX protocol connectivity options; (5) to eliminate outdated CTCI connectivity options that rely on Nasdaq-supported circuits; (6) to eliminate CTCI connectivity as it relates to FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility; and (7) to add clarifying rule text and numbering to the section of the rule concerning other port fees.
First, Nasdaq is proposing to add clarifying language to the preamble of the rule. Specifically, Nasdaq is proposing to note that the various connectivity options under the rule include connectivity to systems operated by FINRA. Although Nasdaq believes that it is clear that some of the systems listed are operated by FINRA (
Second, Nasdaq is proposing to clarify the use of the term “port pair,” which is used inconsistently under the rule. For certain ports under Rule 7015 that are used for either trading or data, Nasdaq additionally provides a disaster recovery port at no cost. Such a disaster recovery port provides connectivity to Nasdaq's or FINRA's disaster recovery location in the event of a failure of Nasdaq's or FINRA's primary trading infrastructure. Nasdaq has provided disaster recovery ports at no cost since 2006 to encourage member firms to maintain such connectivity in the event of a market disruption so that the market as a whole could continue to operate.
Third, Nasdaq is reorganizing and adding language to subparagraph (a) of
Fourth, Nasdaq is proposing to add clarifying rule text to subparagraph (b) of the rule, which concerns fees assessed for FIX ports. A FIX port is a trading port using a FIX-based telecommunication protocol. FIX, an abbreviation for Financial Information eXchange, is a standard message protocol that defines an electronic message exchange for communicating securities transactions between two parties. Nasdaq offers four FIX-based trading ports, which vary based on messaging formats and capability. Nasdaq is proposing to list these four protocols under the rule that a member firm may select when subscribing to a FIX trading port. Similarly, Nasdaq is adding clarifying language to the FIX Port for Services Other than Trading subscription. A FIX Port for Services Other than Trading provides subscribers with a non-trading port that is used solely to report over the counter trades for tape reporting and/or clearing purposes. Nasdaq is proposing to list each venue to which a FIX Port for Services Other than Trading may connect a member firm. Lastly, Nasdaq is adding language to the rule noting that disaster recovery ports are available for FIX connectivity at no charge.
Fifth, Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate rule text under subparagraph (c) of the rule that concerns bandwidth-based connectivity options to connect to a CTCI station and related fees. The deleted table of fees concerns CTCI connectivity that relies on Nasdaq-supported circuits. These circuits are based on outdated technology and Nasdaq does not have any subscribers to any of these circuits. Member firms instead use third party connectivity to access their CTCI stations. Nasdaq is also adding language to the subparagraph noting that disaster recovery ports are available for CTCI station connectivity at no charge.
Sixth, Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate CTCI connectivity from subparagraph (e) of the rule, which concerns specialized services related to the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility. Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate the connectivity option because this add on fee is directly related to the CTCI connectivity options Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate, rendering it moot.
Seventh, Nasdaq is proposing to add clarifying rule text and numbering to subparagraph (g) of the rule, which concerns other port fees. Subparagraph (g) contains all other connectivity options available that are not otherwise described in Rule 7015. These connectivity options include wireless connectivity (specifically Multicast Wave Ports), and other trading and telecommunications ports. Under the rule, the Exchange assesses a charge of $550 per month for each port pair, other than Multicast ITCH data feed pairs, for which the fee is $1,000 per month for software-based TotalView-ITCH or $2,500 per month for combined software- and hardware-based TotalView-ITCH, and TCP ITCH data feed pairs, for which the fee is $750 per month. The Exchange also assesses an additional charge of $200 per month for each port used for entering orders or quotes over the Internet. Lastly, the Exchange assesses an additional charge of $600 per month for each port used for market data delivery over the Internet. The Exchange is proposing to list each connectivity option provided under the rule and the related fee.
Under subparagraph (g) of the rule, a member firm may subscribe to other port pairs not otherwise noted in the rule. Such port pairs may be OUCH and RASH protocol ports or Drop ports. The Exchange is proposing to describe each of these options under the rule separately. Member firms may subscribe to trading ports, which are exclusively used for testing purposes. These ports may not be used for trading in securities in the System, and are provided at no cost. The Exchange is adding rule text noting that these test ports may be subscribed to under the rule. The Exchange also provides optional backup ports for OUCH port subscribers at no cost. OUCH backup ports are similar to disaster recovery ports; however, unlike disaster recovery ports that provide backup connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery location in Chicago, OUCH backup ports provide alternative port hardware in the event of a failure of the primary port hardware in the primary connectivity location in Carteret. The Exchange notes that OUCH ports have the largest number of subscribers and the hardware used for OUCH ports houses the largest number of member firms per hardware unit, therefore representing the greatest potential impact to the market should there be a hardware failure. Accordingly, the Exchange determined that offering OUCH backup ports will help ensure there is minimal market impact should there be an OUCH port hardware failure. The Exchange is adding OUCH backup ports as a service that may be subscribed to at no cost. The Exchange also provides data retransmission ports at no cost. Data retransmission ports allow a subscriber to replay market data, in the event the data was missed in live feed or for verification purposes. Data retransmission ports only allow replay of the current trading day and do not provide data concerning prior trading days' data. The Exchange is adding rule text noting that data retransmission ports may be subscribed to under the rule. The Exchange is also expressly noting that disaster recovery ports are available for the connectivity options under the rule at no cost. Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the two subscription options and related fees provided under subparagraph (g) of the rule assessed for ports that are used for entering orders or quotes over the Internet, and ports that are used for market data delivery over the Internet. The Exchange notes that it is
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the clarifying changes to the rule protect investors and the public interest because they explicitly describe the fees assessed for all ports under the rule. Describing all services covered by the rule will serve to avoid investor confusion over the scope of what connectivity options are available, and the costs of such options. The Exchange notes that it is not adding new connectivity options or functionality, but is rather describing more specifically what is currently offered under the rule. In this regard, the Exchange is adding new rule text that describes all functionality available under each subparagraph of the rule, and is reorganizing some rule text under the rule in an effort to make the rule clearer. The Exchange notes that much of the new text concerns testing ports, and ports used in the event of a disaster or hardware failure. These ports help ensure that a fair and orderly market is maintained by allowing member firms to test their systems prior to connecting to the live trading environment, and to provide backup connectivity in the event of a failure or disaster. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed clarifying changes are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of the ECN direct connection port pair under Rule 7014(a) [sic], the deletion of the CTCI connectivity options under Rule 7014(c) [sic] and (e) [sic], as well as the deletion of the Internet-based port fees under Rule 7014(g) [sic], are reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory because there are no subscribers to these connectivity options, all of which are based on outmoded means of connecting to the Exchange. As a consequence, no member firms will be impacted by deletion of the connectivity options. The Exchange notes that it is not altering the charges assessed for the remaining connectivity options under Rule 7015.
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. Specifically, Nasdaq is making clarifying changes to Rule 7015, which does not impose any burden on competition whatsoever. To the contrary, the proposed change facilitates competition by clarifying what connectivity options are provided by the Exchange, thereby informing [sic] other market venues a better understanding of what connectivity options are available for Nasdaq. With that better understanding, other market venues may improve existing connectivity options or offer new connectivity options to compete with Nasdaq. Accordingly, the proposed changes do not inhibit market participants' ability to compete among each other, nor do they impose any burden on competition among market venues, but rather may promote competition among market venues.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The current Participants in the Linkage Plan are BOX, C2, CBOE, ISE, MIAX, Nasdaq, Phlx, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and Topaz. The amendment to the Plan added EDGX as a Participant in the Plan. EDGX has submitted a signed copy of the Plan to the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan regarding new Participants. Section 3(c) of the Plan provides for the entry of new Participants to the Plan. Specifically an Eligible Exchange
Section 4(b) of the Plan puts forth the process by which an Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the Plan. Specifically, an Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the Plan with the only change being the addition of the new participant's name in Section 3(a) of the Plan; and (b) submit the executed Plan to the Commission. The Plan then provides that such an amendment will be effective when the amendment is approved by the Commission or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608 thereunder.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Form S-6 (17 CFR 239.16), for Registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of Securities of Unit Investment Trusts Registered on Form N-8B-2 (17 CFR 274.13).” Form S-6 is a form used for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77j(a)(3)) provides that when a prospectus is used more than nine months after the effective date of the registration statement, the information therein shall be as of a date not more than sixteen months prior to such use. As a result, most UITs update their registration statements under the Securities Act on an annual basis in order that their sponsors may continue to maintain a secondary market in the units. UITs that are registered under the Investment Company Act on Form N-8B-2 file post-effective amendments to their registration statements on Form S-6 in order to update their prospectuses.
The purpose of Form S-6 is to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and to enable filers to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in the security. This information collection differs significantly from many other federal information collections, which are primarily for the use and benefit of the collecting agency. The information required to be filed with the Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination of the information.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 1,340 initial registration statements filed on Form S-6 annually and approximately 1,158 annual post-effective amendments to previously effective registration statements filed on Form S-6. The Commission estimates that the hour burden for preparing and filing an initial registration statement on Form S-6 is 45 hours and for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment to a previously effective registration statement filed on Form S-6 is 40 hours. Therefore, we estimate that the total hour burden of preparing and filing registration statements on Form S-6 for all affected UITs is 106,620 hours. We estimate that the cost burden of preparing and filing an initial registration statement on Form S-6 is $33,104 and for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment is $19,862. Therefore, we estimate that the total cost burden of preparing and filing registration statements on Form S-6 for all affected UITs is $67,359,556.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the information collection requirements of Form S-6 is mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
All submissions should refer to File Number 270-181. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation timeframe for adopting an optional Kill Switch protection.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to extend the implementation of the timeframe to adopt a new risk protection, a Kill Switch, applicable to all BX Participants. In its rule change adopting this new risk protection in Chapter VI, Section 6, the Exchange stated, “The Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the implementation date.”
By way of background, the Kill Switch will allow BX Participants to remove quotes and cancel open orders and prevent new order submission. The BX Options Kill Switch is an optional tool that enables Participants to initiate a message(s)
If the Participant selects quotes to be cancelled utilizing the Kill Switch, the BX Participant must send a message to the Exchange to request the removal of all quotes requested for the certain specified Identifier(s). The BX Participant will be unable to enter any additional quotes for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has been enabled pursuant to proposed section (d)(iii).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The delay of the implementation of BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6 will permit the Exchange an additional thirty days within which to implement this risk protection that will be utilized by BX Participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because all BX Participants may avail themselves of the Kill Switch, which functionality will be optional. The proposed rule change is meant to protect BX Participants in the event the BX Participant is suffering from a systems issue or from the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity that would require them to withdraw from the market in order to protect investors. The ability to control risk at either the user or group level will permit the BX Participant to protect itself from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk at the each level. Reducing such risk will enable BX Participants to enter quotes and orders without any fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of
The delay of the implementation of BX Rules at Chapter VII, Section 6(f) will permit the Exchange additional time to implement this risk protection that will be utilized by BX Participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
BX requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because the extension will provide the Exchange with the additional time it requires to implement the Kill Switch program. The Commission further notes that BX's proposal to adopt the Kill Switch
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
ISE Gemini proposes to codify, in the Supplementary Material to Rule 306 Registration Requirements, the categories of registration and respective qualification examinations required for individual associated persons (“associated persons”) that engage in the securities activities of members on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 1) replace the Proprietary Trader registration category
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 306 Registration Requirements. This amendment will replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category and qualification examination (Series 56) with the newly codified Securities Trader (TD) registration category and qualification examination (Series 57). In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader Principal (TP) registration category for associated persons who either: (i) Supervise or monitor proprietary trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers; (ii) supervise or train those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with respect to those activities; and/or (iii) are officers, partners or directors of a member, as described in proposed paragraph (a) to .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 306. The Exchange also proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration category for Chief Compliance Officers (or individuals performing similar functions) of a member or member organization. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-FINRA-2015-017 and SR-C2-2015-027.
Currently, Rule 306 requires, among other things, an associated person engaged or to be engaged in the securities business of a member to register with the Exchange in the category of registration appropriate to the function to be performed and to pass the qualification examination appropriate to the category of registration as prescribed by the Exchange. Among the qualification and registration requirements set forth by the Exchange, an associated person who engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer must register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader (PT) in WebCRD.
.07 of Supplementary Material to Rule 306 further requires that an associated person with supervisory responsibility over proprietary trading activities or who is an (i) officer; (ii) partner; (iii) director; (iv) supervisor of proprietary trading, market-making or brokerage activities; and/or (v) supervisor of those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making or brokerage activities with respect to those activities is required to register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) in WebCRD and satisfy prerequisite registration and qualification requirements, including, but not limited to passing the Series 24 General Securities Principal Examination or an acceptable alternative qualification examination. An associated person who is a Chief Compliance Officer (or performs similar functions) for a member that engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer is also required to register and qualify as a Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) in WebCRD and satisfy the prerequisite registration and qualification requirements, including, but not limited to passing the Series 14 Compliance Official Examination or an acceptable alternative qualification exam.
The Exchange proposes to replace the Series 56 qualification examination with the newly codified Series 57 qualification examination for those registration categories where the Series 56 is currently an acceptable qualification standard. Specifically, with respect to the Proprietary Trader registration, the Exchange proposes to replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category with the newly codified Securities Trader (TD) registration category as well as eliminate the current Series 56 Proprietary Trader Exam prerequisite and, instead, include a Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination in its place.
The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular. Currently, the Exchange intends for the effective date to be January 4, 2016. Under the proposed rule, associated persons who have passed the Proprietary Trader (Series 56) qualification examination and who have registered as a Proprietary Trader (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, and associated persons who have passed the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, would be grandfathered as Securities Traders (TDs) without having to take any additional examinations and without having to take any other action, provided that the associated person's registration has not been revoked by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have passed between the date that the associated person last registered as a Proprietary Trader (PT) and the effective date. After the effective date, an associated person would need to pass the new Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination and register as a Securities Trader (TD).
In addition, associated persons who have either passed the Proprietary Trader (PT) qualification examination or the General Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, and who have also passed the General Securities Principal (Series 24) qualification examination (or have completed any of the alternative acceptable qualifications requirements as defined in new .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 306) and who have also registered as Proprietary Trader Principals (TP) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change, would be eligible to register as Securities Trader Principals (TPs), provided that the associated person's registration has not been revoked by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have passed between the date that the associated person last registered as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) and the date they [sic] register as a Securities Trader Principal (TP).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange further believes its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Implementation of the proposed changes to ISE Gemini's registration rules in coordination with the FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for associated persons and enhance the ability of the Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate associated persons, which will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives and principals will be required to complete the same qualification examinations. Finally, the proposed rule change does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed Series 57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered persons relative to new entrants in this regard.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the thirty-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative as of January 4, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the thirty day delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will enable the Exchange to have the new requirements in effect at the same time as the other SROs. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the thirty-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative as of January 4, 2016.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation timeframe for adopting an optional Kill Switch protection.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to extend the implementation of the timeframe to adopt a new risk protection, a Kill Switch, applicable to all NOM Participants. In its rule change adopting this new risk protection in Chapter VI, Section 6, the Exchange stated, “The Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the implementation date.”
By way of background, the Kill Switch will allow NOM Participants to remove quotes and cancel open orders and prevent new order submission. The NASDAQ Options Kill Switch will be an optional tool that enables
If the Participant selects quotes to be cancelled utilizing the Kill Switch, the NOM Participant must send a message to the Exchange to request the removal of all quotes requested for the certain specified Identifier(s). The NOM Participant will be unable to enter any additional quotes for the affected Identifier(s) until re-entry has been enabled pursuant to proposed section (d)(iii).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The delay of the implementation of NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6 will permit the Exchange an additional thirty days within which to implement this risk protection that will be utilized by NOM Participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because all NOM Participants may avail themselves of the Kill Switch, which functionality will be optional. The proposed rule change is meant to protect NOM Participants in the event the NOM Participant is suffering from a systems issue or from the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity that would require them to withdraw from the market in order to protect investors. The ability to control risk at either the user or group level will permit the NOM Participant to protect itself from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk at the each level. Reducing such risk will enable NOM Participants to enter quotes and orders without any fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they receive better prices and because it lowers volatility in the options market. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe this proposal imposes an undue burden on inter-market competition, rather, the proposed rule change will have no impact on competition.
The delay of the implementation of NOM Rules at Chapter VII, Section 6(f) will permit the Exchange additional time to implement this risk protection that will be utilized by NOM Participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Nasdaq requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because the extension will provide the Exchange with the additional time it requires to implement the Kill Switch program. The Commission further notes that Nasdaq's proposal to adopt the Kill Switch
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) proposes to amend fees for certain CBOE real-time data feeds. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend fees for the BBO Data Feed and Book Depth Data Feed. These data feeds are made available by CBOE's affiliate Market Data Express, LLC (“MDX”).
The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee from $6,000 per month to $7,000 per month. The Exchange currently charges a “User Fee”, payable by a Customer, of $50 per month per Device or user ID for use of data in the BBO Data Feed by “Display Only Service” users.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee from $6,000 per month to $7,000 per month. The Exchange currently charges a “User Fee”, payable by a Customer, of $50 per month per Device or user ID for use of data in the Book Depth Data Feed by “Display Only Service” users (as defined above). User fees are payable only for “external” Display Only Service users (Devices or user IDs of Display Only Service users who are not employees or natural person independent contractors of the Customer, the Customer's affiliates or an authorized service facilitator).
The Exchange also proposes to make a few clean-up changes to the MDX fee schedule for CBOE data, including removing several references to a January 1, 2015 effective date for prior fee changes.
The proposed fee changes would be effective on January 1, 2016.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposed increases in the Data Fees for the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds are intended to generate revenues that are needed to cover CBOE's actual and anticipated increases in the costs of collecting, processing and disseminating options market information and assuring the reliability and integrity of that information, as well as increases in CBOE's administrative costs. These costs include enhancements to CBOE's systems that are needed in order to enable CBOE to handle the continually increasing volume of market information and to accommodate the dissemination of data during Extended Trading Hours.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for BBO data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 per organization and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per organization (
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for Book Depth data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, the International Securities Exchange offers a “Depth of Market” Feed, which includes the aggregated volume of all quotes and orders available at each of the top five price levels for simple (single legged) instruments, and a separate Spread Feed, which like the Book Depth Data Feed includes order and quote data for complex strategies (
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can select such alternatives.
For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds are equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Exchange believes that no substantial countervailing basis exists to support a finding that the proposed fees for the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds fail to meet the requirements of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data market feed products is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and (3) the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 options self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”) and internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”). Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
The large number of SROs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do. In addition, the OPRA data feed is a significant competitive alternative to the BBO and last sale data included in the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds.
Further, data products are valuable to professional users only if they can be used for profit-generating purposes in their businesses and valuable to non-professional users only insofar as they provide information that such users expect will assist them in tracking prices and market trends and making trading decisions.
The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the Lean for Main Street Training Challenge, pursuant to the America Competes Act, to encourage current SBA Women's Business Centers, Small Business Development Centers, and SCORE Chapters—to identify ways of adapting framework established under the National Science Foundation's successful I-Corps
The submission period for entries will begin at 12:00 p.m. EDT, January 11, 2016, and end February 10, 2016, at 11:59 p.m. EDT. SBA anticipates that winners will be announced no later than February 29, 2016.
Matthew Stevens, Strategic Initiatives Manager, Office of Entrepreneurial Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-7699,
1.
2.
(a) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by SBA;
(b) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this Notice;
(c) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and
(d) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment;
(e) Shall not be an SBA employee working on their applications during assigned duty hours.
3.
4.
5.
6.
• Audience: SBA's Resource Partners interact with a diverse group of small business owners and entrepreneurs. While lean materials aimed towards tech startups are commonly available, entrepreneurs in different industries, with different backgrounds, or from different geographies may find these materials less applicable to their immediate circumstances. In order to be successful, a Contestant should clearly identify the specific audience for which their modified program would be developed. Contestants are free to define their audience according to their own parameters (
• Adaptation: To kick off the adaptation of the I-Corps
• Implementation: An entrepreneurial development program is only as good as the people it can reach. While the ability to adapt and customize entrepreneurial development resources is clearly important, equally important will be the Contestants' solution to delivering their curriculum to small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs in their target audience. An application should delineate, as clearly as possible, how the Resource Partner intends to leverage their existing relationships, the curriculum that they will develop, and the funds awarded to bring lean methods into their communities on a pilot basis. Applications should also give a clear idea of how they intend to evaluate the effectiveness of their program, including specific metrics that the Resource Partner will track.
7.
8.
9.
(a). All entries submitted in response to this Competition will remain the sole intellectual property of the individuals or organizations that developed them. By registering and entering a submission, each Contestant represents and warrants that it is the sole author and copyright owner of the submission, and that the submission is an original work of the Contestant, or if the submission is a work based on an existing application, that the Contestant has acquired sufficient rights to use and to authorize others to use the submission, and that the submission does not infringe upon any copyright or upon any other third party rights of which the Contestant is aware.
(b). The winning Contestant will, in consideration of the prize to be awarded, grant to SBA an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, copy, display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, and share the lean training resources or parts thereof that are to be developed as a result of winning this competition or for any official SBA purpose.
10.
11.
12.
America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010, 15 U.S.C. 3719.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice, correction.
On December 16, 2015, notice was published on pages 78283 and 78284 of the
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
There will be a closed meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee on Tuesday, February 2 and Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at the Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC.
The Committee will conduct interim reviews of the
The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601
This meeting will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 19 U.S.C. 2605(h), the latter of which stipulates that “The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act . . . shall apply to the [Cultural Property Advisory] Committee except that the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 10 and section 11 of such Act (relating to open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public availability of documents) shall not apply to the Committee, whenever and to the extent it is determined by the President or his designee that the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee's proceedings would compromise the Government's negotiation objectives or bargaining positions on the negotiations of any agreement authorized by this chapter.”
Pursuant to law, executive order, and delegation of authority, I have made such a determination.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of hearing and receipt of public comments.
This notice announces petitions submitted in connection with the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review that have been accepted for further review. This notice also sets forth the schedule for submitting comments and for a public hearing associated with the review of these petitions and products.
Aimee Larsen, Director for GSP, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-2974 and the email address is
The GSP regulations (15 CFR part 2007) provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review unless otherwise specified in a notice published in the
February 19, 2016—Due date for submission of comments, pre-hearing briefs and requests to appear at the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing on the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review.
March 3-4, 2016—The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will convene a public hearing on all petitioned product additions, product removals, and competitive needs limitation (CNL) waiver petitions that were accepted for the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review. The hearing will be held in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW., Washington DC 20508, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day.
March 25, 2016—Due date for submission of post-hearing comments or briefs in connection with the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing.
April 2016—The U.S. International Trade Commission is expected to publish a public version of its report providing advice on the probable economic effect of the prospective addition and removal of products and granting of CNL waiver petitions considered as part of 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review. Comments from interested parties on the USITC report on these products should be posted on
July 1, 2016—Effective date for any modifications that the President proclaims to the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP resulting from the 2015/2016 Annual Product Review and for determinations related to CNL waivers.
The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. The GSP program is authorized by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461,
In a notice published in the
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC has reviewed the product and CNL waiver petitions submitted in response to these announcements, and has decided to accept for review 23 petitions to add a product to the list of those eligible for duty-free treatment
A list of petitions and products accepted for review is posted on the USTR Web site at
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC invites comments in support of or in opposition to any petition that has been accepted for the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review. The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC will also convene a public hearing on these products and petitions. See below for information on how to submit a request to testify at this hearing.
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC will hold a two-day hearing on Thursday, March 3, 2016, and Friday, March 4, 2016 beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day, for products and petitions accepted for the 2015/2016 GSP Annual Product Review. The hearing will be held at 1724 F Street NW., Washington DC 20508 and will be open to the public. A transcript of the hearing will be made available on
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the “Requirements for Submissions” set out below, the name, address, telephone number, and email address (if available), of the witness(es) representing their organization by 5 p.m., Friday, February 19, 2016. Requests to present oral testimony in connection with the public hearing must be accompanied by a written brief or summary statement, in English, and also must be received by 5 p.m., Friday, February 19, 2016. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited below and are submitted, in English, by 5 p.m., Friday, March 25, 2016. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs or comments by the aforementioned deadlines.
Submissions in response to this notice (including requests to testify, written comments, and pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs) must be submitted by the applicable deadlines set forth in this notice. All submissions must be made in English and submitted electronically via
Each submitter will receive a submission tracking number upon completion of the submissions procedure at
An interested party requesting that information contained in a submission be treated as business confidential information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such. The submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page, and the submission should indicate, via brackets, the specific information that is confidential. Additionally, “Business Confidential” must be included in the “Type Comment” field. For any submission containing business confidential information, a non-confidential version must be submitted separately (
Submissions in response to this notice, except for information granted “business confidential” status under 15 CFR 2003.6, will be available for public viewing pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.6 at
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for written submissions from the public and announcement of public hearing.
Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act) requires the United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. The provisions of Section 182 are commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provisions of the Trade Act. The Trade Act requires the Trade Representative to determine which, if any, of these countries to identify as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies, or practices that are the basis of a country's identification as a Priority Foreign Country can be subject to the procedures set out in sections 301-305 of the Trade Act.
In addition, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has created a “Priority Watch List” and “Watch List” to assist the Administration in pursuing the goals of the Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List of Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement or market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection. Trading partners placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the problem areas.
USTR chairs the Special 301 Subcommittee (Subcommittee) of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. The Subcommittee reviews information from many sources, and consults with and makes recommendations to the Trade Representative on issues arising under Special 301. Written submissions from the public are a key source of information for the Special 301 review process. In 2015, USTR again will conduct a public hearing as part of the review process as well as offer the opportunity, as described below, for hearing participants to provide additional information relevant to the review. At the conclusion of the process, USTR will publish the results of the review in a “Special 301” Report.
USTR is hereby requesting written submissions from the public concerning foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. USTR requests that interested persons provide the information described below in the “Public Comments” section, and identify whether a particular trading partner should be named as a Priority Foreign Country under Section 182 of the Trade Act or placed on the Priority Watch List or Watch List. Foreign governments that have been identified in previous Special 301 Reports or that are nominated for review in 2016 are considered interested parties, and are invited to respond to this request for public submissions. Interested persons and foreign governments wishing to submit information to be considered during the review or testify at the public hearing must adhere to the procedures and deadlines stet forth below.
The schedule and deadlines for the 2016 Special 301 review are as follows:
Friday, February 5, 2016 at midnight EST—Deadline for interested persons to submit written comments, notices of intent to testify at the Special 301 Public Hearing, and Hearing statements.
Friday, February 19, 2016 at midnight EST—Deadline for foreign governments to submit written comments, notices of intent to testify at the Special 301 Public Hearing, and although not mandatory, any prepared hearing statements.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016—Public Hearing—The Special 301 Subcommittee will hold a public hearing for interested persons, including representatives of foreign governments, at the Office of the United State Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Rooms 1&2, Washington, DC 20508. If necessary, the hearing may continue on the next business day. Please consult the USTR Web site for confirmation of the date and location and the schedule of witnesses.
Friday, March 4, 2016 at midnight EST—Deadline for submitting post-hearing written comments. Interested persons who testified at the public hearing may provide written comments after the hearing. To ensure consideration, comments must be received no later than Friday, March 4, 2016. Please submit additional written comments electronically via
On or about April 30, 2016—USTR will publish the 2016 Special 301 Report within 30 days of the publication of the National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report.
All written comments, notices of intent to testify at the public hearing, hearing statements and post-hearing written responses must be in English and submitted electronically via
Christine Peterson, Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation, Office of the United States Trade Representative, at
USTR requests that interested persons identify through the process outlined in this notice those countries whose acts, policies, or practices deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.
Section 182 further requires the Trade Representative to identify any act, policy, or practice of Canada that affects cultural industries, is adopted or expanded after December 17, 1992, and is actionable under Article 2106 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The public is invited to submit views relevant to this aspect of the review.
Section 182 requires the Trade Representative to identify all such acts, policies, or practices within 30 days of the publication of the NTE Report. In accordance with this statutory requirement, USTR will publish the annual Special 301 Report on or about April 30, 2016.
To facilitate the review, written comments should be as detailed as possible and provide all necessary information for identifying and assessing the effect of the acts, policies, and practices. USTR requests that interested parties provide specific references to laws; regulations; policy statements, including innovation policies; executive, presidential or other orders; and administrative, court or other determinations that should factor in the review. USTR also requests that, where relevant, submissions mention
Comments must be in English. All comments should be sent electronically via
The Special 301 Subcommittee will hold a public hearing on March 1, 2016, at Office of the United State Trade Representative, 1724 F Street NW., Rooms 1&2, Washington, DC 20508, at which interested persons, including representatives of foreign governments, may appear to provide oral testimony. If necessary, the hearing may continue on the next business day. The hearing will be open to the public. Because the hearings will be located in Federal facilities, security screening will be required. Attendees will need to show photo identification and be screened for security purposes. Please consult
Prepared oral testimony before the Special 301 Subcommittee must be delivered in person, in English, and will be limited to five minutes. Subcommittee member agencies may ask questions following the prepared statement. Persons, except representatives of foreign governments, wishing to testify at the hearing must submit a “Notice of Intent to Testify” and “Hearing Statement” to
All representatives of foreign governments that wish to testify at the hearing must submit a “Notice of Intent to Testify” to
A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. The filenames of both documents should reflect their status—“BCI” for the business confidential version and “PUBLIC” for the public version. In the document, confidential business information must be clearly designated as such, the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page, and the submission should indicate, via brackets, the specific information that is confidential.
Additionally, the submitter should write “Business Confidential” in the “Type Comment” field. Anyone submitting a comment containing business confidential information must also submit, as a separate submission, a nonbusiness confidential version of the submission, indicating where the business confidential information has been redacted. The non-business confidential version will be placed in the docket at
USTR will maintain a publicly accessible docket for the 2016 Special 301 Review. This public file will include all non-business confidential comments, notices of intent to testify, and hearing statements that USTR receives from the public, including foreign governments, in conjunction with the 2016 Special 301 Review. Comments will be placed in the docket upon receipt and be open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13. Comments containing confidential business information are exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15. However, USTR will require submission of non-business confidential versions of such documents, as described above, and will post non-business confidential versions to the public docket. Comments may be viewed at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise a currently approved information collection. The information collected is used to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for a variety of positions within the FAA. The FAA seeks to remove a duplicative questionnaire.
Written comments should be submitted March 14, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
OMB Control Number: 2120-0597.
Title: Application for Employment with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this collection. Information is collected via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) online USAJOBS system and the FAA's Automated Vacancy Information Access Tool for Online Referral (AVIATOR) staffing tool.
Type of Review: Revision of an information collection.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a currently approved information collection. To determine regulatory compliance, there is a need for airmen to maintain records of certain training and recency of experience; a training center has to maintain records of student's training, employee qualification and training, and training program approvals.
Written comments should be submitted by March 11, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps for Burlington International Airport, as submitted by the City of Burlington, Vermont, under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150, are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is December 22, 2015.
Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Burlington International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective December 22, 2015.
Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and related descriptions submitted by the City of Burlington, Vermont. The specific maps under consideration were “Figure 12, 2015 Existing Conditions Noise Exposure Map” and “Figure 13, 2020 Forecast Conditions Noise Exposure Map” in the submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Burlington International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on December 22, 2015.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading:
DOT, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), lead Federal agency; and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Park Service, cooperating agencies.
Notice of extension of public scoping comment period.
A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, open a public scoping period, and hold a public scoping meeting for the proposed Spaceport Camden was published in the
Written comments must be received on or before January 18, 2016.
Please submit comments, statements, or questions concerning scoping issues or the EIS process to Ms. Stacey M. Zee, FAA Environmental Specialist, Spaceport Camden County EIS c/o Leidos, 20201 Century Boulevard, Suite 105, Germantown, MD 20874. Comments can also be sent by email to
Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
On November 6, 2015, the FAA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an
Additional information regarding the proposed project is available online at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps for Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport, as submitted by the City of Westfield, Massachusetts, under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150, are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is December 22, 2015.
Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective December 22, 2015.
Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and related descriptions submitted by Westfield, Massachusetts. The specific maps under consideration were “Figure 3-9. DNL Contours for Average Daily Aircraft Operations for CY2015” and “Figure 4-1. DNL Contours for Average Daily Aircraft Operations for CY2020 NEM” in the submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on December 22, 2015.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 36 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0294; FMCSA-2011-0326; FMCSA-2011-0327; FMCSA-2011-0367; FMCSA-2013-0192, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 36 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
This notice addresses 36 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 36 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of February and are discussed below.
As of February 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (76 FR 79756; 77 FR 5873):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0326. Their exemptions are effective as of February 6, 2016 and will expire on February 6, 2018.
As of February 10, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 6 individuals, have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 78720; 77 FR 7232):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0327. Their exemptions are effective as of February 10, 2016 and will expire on February 10, 2018.
As of February 12, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0192. The exemption is effective as of February 12, 2016 and will expire on February 12, 2018.
As of February 22, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (77 FR 533; 77 FR 10607):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0367. Their exemptions are effective as of February 22, 2016 and will expire on February 22, 2018.
As of February 24, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (78 FR 68092; 79 FR 8182):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0294. Their exemptions are effective as of February 24, 2016 and will expire on February 24, 2018.
As of February 27, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following individual, Charles R. Clayton (NJ) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086).
The driver was included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0192. The exemption is effective as of February 27, 2016 and will expire on February 27, 2018.
Each of the 36 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 36 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0294; FMCSA-2011-0326; FMCSA-2011-0327; FMCSA-2011-0367; FMCSA-2013-0192.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by February 10, 2016.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 36 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 59 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted November 3, 2015. The exemptions expire on November 3, 2017.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On October 1, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 59230). That notice listed 59 applicants' case histories. The 59 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 59 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 59 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, bullous keratopathy, cancerous tumor, cataract, central pigment epithelial atrophy, central retinal detachment, central serous retinopathy, central vision loss, chorioretinal scar, Coat's exudative, complete loss of vision, corneal scar, decreased vision, glaucoma, Lasik surgery complication, macular degeneration, macular hole, macular scar, optic atrophy, optic neuropathy, optic nerve coloboma, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye, refractive amblyopia, retinal detachment, retinal scar, traumatic cataract, and vein occlusion. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Thirty-five of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The 24 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 3 to 39 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 59 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 0 to 55 years. In the past three years, 2 drivers were involved in crashes, and 3 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 1, 2015 notice (80 FR 59230).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 59 applicants, 2 drivers were involved in crashes, and 3 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 59 applicants listed in the notice of October 1, 2015 (80 FR 59230).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 59 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following:
(1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received 6 comments in this proceeding. Samuel Byler, Andrea Gonzalez, and an anonymous commenter are in favor of all drivers on the notice receiving vision exemptions. An anonymous commenter stated that the requirements for a vision exemption should be more stringent. Steve Riney is in favor of granting a vision exemption to Richard Parker and Steve Wilson is in favor of granting a vision exemption to Harjot Aujla.
Based upon its evaluation of the 59 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
Steven B. Anderson (ID), Harjot S. Aujla (WA), Thomas B. Berger (PA), Jay E. Biggers (ID), Timothy A. Bohling (CO), Brian M. Bowman (TN), Gary Bozowski (NJ), Timothy V. Burke (CO), Timothy J. Burleson (IL), Robert J. Burns (KY), Richard A. Congdon, Jr. (OR), James E. Copp (PA), Jose C. Costa (WA), Thomas P. Davidson (NJ), Mark Davis (ME), Stephen W. Deminie (TX), Brad M. Donald (MI), Robert L. Ecker (MD), John A. Gartner (MN), Brian W. Gillund
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated September 22, 2015, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0139.
Amtrak seeks a temporary waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.115(b)(1)(2), which covers “marking and instructions for emergency egress and rescue access,” and references APTA PR-E-S_013-99, Rev. 1, “Standard for Emergency Lighting System Design for Passenger Cars,” for a period of 12 months until December 31, 2016. Amtrak is seeking this temporary relief as it works to bring 70 percent of its passenger rolling stock fleet that was ordered prior to September 8, 2000, and placed in service prior to September 9, 2002, into compliance with the emergency lighting requirements. Amtrak justifies the need for this deadline extension because it will need to test between 201 and 408 cars across its fleets located at multiple locations spanning geographic areas from the East Coast to the West Coast as outlined in its petition. Amtrak indicates that this 70-percent modification goal may require modification to as many as 1,200 of the passenger cars listed in its petition (the comprehensive listing of equipment includes Acela, TALGO, Surfliners, Comets, Heritage, Superliner 1, Superliner 2, Amfleet 1, Amfleet 2, Viewliner, Horizon, Metroliner, LDSL, and various inspection cars).
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number FRA-2015-0139 and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 25, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of establishment of public docket (Notice).
This Notice announces the establishment of FRA's emergency relief docket (ERD) for calendar year 2016. The designated ERD for calendar year 2016 is Docket Number FRA-2016-0001.
See Supplementary Information section for further information regarding submitting petitions and/or comments to Docket No. FRA-2016-0001.
On May 19, 2009, FRA published a direct final rule addressing the establishment of ERDs and the procedures for handling
As detailed in 49 CFR 211.45, if the FRA Administrator determines that an emergency event as defined in 49 CFR 211.45(a) has occurred, or that an imminent threat of such an emergency occurring exists, and public safety would benefit from providing the railroad industry with operational relief, the emergency waiver procedures of 49 CFR 211.45 will go into effect. In such an event, the FRA Administrator will issue a statement in the ERD indicating that the emergency waiver procedures are in effect and FRA will make every effort to post the statement on its Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated December 21, 2015, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an amended waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service (HOS) laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0078.
In its petition, ASLRRA seeks to amend its existing waiver to add two member railroads, the Plainsman Switching Company and the South Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad Company. The existing HOS waiver was granted in a February 27, 2012, letter from FRA. The waiver allows a train employee to initiate an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive days followed by 24 hours, rather than 48 hours, off duty.
Each railroad that seeks to be added to the waiver executed a compliance letter, attesting that it complies with all of the employee consent requirements that FRA set forth in its initial March 5, 2010, decision letter. Additionally, each railroad will maintain the underlying employee consent or employee representative consent documents in its files for FRA inspection.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by February 25, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of availability and request for comments on the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project Amended Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.
This notice announces the availability of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project Amended Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, which includes preliminary Section 4(f)
By this notice, FTA requests that comments to the Amended Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation must be received by February 25, 2016.
Kathryn Loster, FTA Regional Counsel at (312) 353-3869,
Notice is hereby given that the FTA is releasing an Amended Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (Amended Evaluation) for the Southwest LRT Project (Project), evaluating two additional Section 4(f) properties in the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota.
To obtain a copy of the Amended Evaluation, please visit the Project's Web site at
49 U.S.C. 303.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is announcing a meeting that will be held in Washington, DC on February 2nd, 2016 to announce a new initiative and accept comments from the public about the development of voluntary evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for fatigue risk management tailored to the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) occupation. The meeting will include presentations by NHTSA and the project team. These presentations will address the following: (1) A brief overview of the potential dangers of drowsy and fatigued driving and the work of EMS practitioners, including the risk of traffic crashes and providing patient care; (2) a summary of the project goals and methods for coming to consensus on EBG fatigue risk management guidelines, (3) the plan for dissemination of EBGs, and (4) additional project related activities and information. Due to space limitations, attendance at the meeting is limited to invited participants and those who register in advance. Time for comment and questions from attendees will be included. Written comments can also be made on
The meeting will be held on February 2nd, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Conference Center of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Dr. J. Stephen Higgins, Telephone: 202-366-3976; email address:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is announcing a meeting that will be held in Washington, DC on February 2nd, 2016 to announce a new initiative and accept comments from the public about the development of voluntary evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for fatigue risk management tailored to the EMS occupation. This initiative (
The meeting will be attended by members of the project team, the EBG panel, members of the public, and members of the EMS community. The meeting will begin with short presentations by NHTSA staff and the project team discussing the dangers of drowsy and fatigued driving and work, a summary of the project goals and methods for coming to consensus on the guidelines, the eventual dissemination of the guidelines, and additional project related activities. A majority of the time in the meeting will be set aside to accept questions and comments from the registered attendees after the brief initial presentations. This is to ensure that the voluntary fatigue risk management guidelines will address the needs of the entire and diverse EMS community. Due to space limitations, attendance at the meeting is limited to invited participants and those who register in advance. All attendees must bring
49 U.S.C. 30182; 23 U.S.C. 403
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
This notice details the adjustment made to the rail passenger transportation liability cap under section 11415 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (December 7, 2015). As a result of the FAST Act, the rail passenger transportation liability cap is raised from $200,000,000 to $294,278,983.
This adjustment will go into effect 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
For further information regarding this notice, please contact Stephanie Lawrence, Office of Policy and Planning, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590; Email:
Under the FAST Act, the index is adjusted to the date of enactment of the FAST Act using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. The index is based on the month of the original liability cap and the last full month prior to the enactment of the FAST Act on December 7, 2015 (December 1997 to November 2015, the last available month of the monthly index). Thereafter, the FAST Act directs the Secretary to update the liability cap every fifth year after the date of the FAST Act's enactment. The table below shows the Index and inflator FRA used to calculate an inflation adjusted amount of $294,278,983.
The adjustment of the rail passenger transportation liability cap to $294,278,983 shall be effective 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning January 1, 2016, and ending on March 31, 2016, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 0.14 per centum per annum.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Effective January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016.
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |