Page Range | 20219-20522 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 20424 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
81 FR 20383 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 20382 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
81 FR 20375 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
81 FR 20432 - Certification Related to the Government of Haiti Under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 | |
81 FR 20448 - Departmental Offices; Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
81 FR 20265 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee | |
81 FR 20415 - Notice of Public Meeting, Dakotas Resource Advisory Council Meeting | |
81 FR 20433 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
81 FR 20435 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
81 FR 20407 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 20251 - Program Integrity and Improvement | |
81 FR 20407 - Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
81 FR 20250 - Program Integrity and Improvement; Corrections | |
81 FR 20410 - Texas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
81 FR 20376 - Applications for New Awards; Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program | |
81 FR 20411 - Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for Notification | |
81 FR 20320 - Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information Collection | |
81 FR 20414 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Subsequent Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands (N-90372) for an Elementary School in the Southwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NV | |
81 FR 20412 - Notice of Realty Action: Non-Competitive Direct Sale, Renunciation, and Conveyance of the Reversionary Interests in Recreation and Public Purpose Act Patents in Glennallen, Alaska | |
81 FR 20257 - National Flood Insurance Program: Update To Address Information for Claims Appeals | |
81 FR 20422 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 20319 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Unshu Oranges From the Republic of Korea Into the Continental United States | |
81 FR 20322 - Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 20321 - Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 20366 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
81 FR 20441 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TUNA HELPER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20441 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LIL BEAR; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20351 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews | |
81 FR 20438 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FISH MASTER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20440 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) Alumni Survey | |
81 FR 20324 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
81 FR 20439 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel REEL OBSESSION; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20442 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel JUBILANT; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20439 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AL VENTO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20367 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 20274 - Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill | |
81 FR 20442 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel KARINA JEAN; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20440 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel INSULAE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
81 FR 20387 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review-A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors; Correction | |
81 FR 20384 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 20383 - Notice of Termination, 10294 North County Bank, Arlington, Washington | |
81 FR 20444 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to Executive Order 13664 | |
81 FR 20383 - Notice of Termination, 10326 Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona | |
81 FR 20416 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
81 FR 20369 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
81 FR 20322 - Office of Administration; Commerce Alternative Personnel System | |
81 FR 20446 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
81 FR 20415 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
81 FR 20247 - Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil | |
81 FR 20368 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Dolphin Conservation Program | |
81 FR 20372 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
81 FR 20384 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 20384 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
81 FR 20383 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 20259 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015-16 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish | |
81 FR 20424 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) | |
81 FR 20407 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 20316 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications | |
81 FR 20323 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 20444 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
81 FR 20387 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Public Comment Request | |
81 FR 20375 - Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate | |
81 FR 20371 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
81 FR 20422 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS) | |
81 FR 20250 - Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; AIS Information Collection | |
81 FR 20425 - Request of Recommendations for Membership for Directorate and Office Advisory Committees | |
81 FR 20367 - Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity | |
81 FR 20369 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
81 FR 20395 - Notification of a Public Teleconference on American Indian/Alaska Native Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit Health Issues | |
81 FR 20388 - Notice of the Redesignation of the Service Delivery Area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) | |
81 FR 20396 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant Program | |
81 FR 20418 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Navinta, LLC | |
81 FR 20419 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse | |
81 FR 20419 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
81 FR 20418 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. | |
81 FR 20417 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Stepan Company | |
81 FR 20264 - Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes; Notice of Public Meeting | |
81 FR 20426 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 20426 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 20428 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF of the SSgA Active Trust | |
81 FR 20426 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Under Rules 7015(b) and (g) | |
81 FR 20443 - Hazardous Materials: ICAO Lithium Ion Battery Prohibition Safety Advisory Notice | |
81 FR 20374 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 228, Bonds and Insurance, and Related Clauses in DFARS 252.228 | |
81 FR 20374 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 20268 - Proposed Priority-Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program | |
81 FR 20406 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 20406 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 20405 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 20406 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 20283 - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System | |
81 FR 20448 - Commission on Care Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 20423 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
81 FR 20245 - Interpretation of the “Advice” Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act | |
81 FR 20261 - Energy Conservation Program: Data Collection and Comparison With Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp Types | |
81 FR 20258 - Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications | |
81 FR 20222 - Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines | |
81 FR 20483 - Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive | |
81 FR 20449 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the Guyandotte River Crayfish | |
81 FR 20252 - National Priorities List | |
81 FR 20277 - National Priorities List | |
81 FR 20319 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 20219 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 20224 - Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators | |
81 FR 20302 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet Macaw |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Research Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Labor-Management Standards Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-26-08 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2013-26-08 required inspecting the orientation of both sides of the coil cord connector keyways of the number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-clocking the connector keyways, if necessary; and replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2 windows on the flight deck. This new AD adds airplanes to the applicability. AD 2013-26-08 resulted from reports of arcing and smoke at the left number 2 window in the flight deck. This AD was prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the same identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.
This AD is effective May 12, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-26-08, Amendment 39-17717 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014) (“AD 2013-26-08”). AD 2013-26-08 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM as written.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE (
United Airlines (UAL) stated that it found it curious that the technical compliance mandated in AD 2013-26-08 was per Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, whereas the airplane applicability in AD 2013-26-08 was based on Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3,
We acknowledge UAL's comment. No change to this AD is necessary.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We estimate that this AD affects 718 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the coil cord inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 12, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2013-26-08, Amendment 39-17717 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014) (“AD 2013-26-08”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke at the left number 2 window in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a general visual inspection of the orientation of the coil cord connector keyways on the captain's and first officer's sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. If the orientation is not at the specified position, before further flight, turn the receptacle connector to the correct position, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) Replace the coil cords with new coil cords on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), install the receptacle connector with changed keyway position on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group 2, Configuration 2, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), do a general visual inspection for rubbing damage of the coil cord on the captain's and first officer's sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. If any rubbing damage is found: Before further flight, replace the coil cord with a new coil cord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
For airplanes identified as Group 3 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install the receptacle connector with changed keyway position on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In the circuit breaker tables of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the panel number for circuit breaker C00393 is incorrectly identified as “P6-12.” The correct panel number reference for circuit breaker C00393, “WINDOW HEAT POWER RIGHT SIDE,” is P6-11.
(2) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the description for Part 3 of the Work Instructions is identified as “PART 3: RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR POSITION CHANGE,” which is incorrect. The correct description for Part 3 of the Work Instructions is “PART 3: COIL CORD INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT IF DAMAGE IS FOUND.”
(3) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In Figures 13 and 14, in paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the note before the step tables misidentifies certain parts and airplane groups. The note should read:
Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes have the connector receptacle identified as D10572. Group 3 airplanes have the connector receptacle identified as D10560. Except for Group 1 airplanes, a wire diagram change is not necessary and not shown in this service bulletin.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), using the service information specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), or (l)(5) of this AD, provided that the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD were done as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013; for airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, dated July 27, 2006, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 2, dated February 13, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(5) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011, which was previously incorporated by reference on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-26-08, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(4) For airplanes identified as Group 3 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, AMOCs approved for the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-26-08, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(4) and (o)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11 turboprop engines. This AD requires inspection of the engine power turbine (PT) disk and, if found damaged, its replacement with a part eligible for installation. This AD was prompted by discovery of damage to certain engine PT disks during engine shop visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine PT disk, which could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, and reduced control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective April 22, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22, 2016.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 23, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0025-E, dated January 26, 2016 (corrected January 27, 2016) (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During engine shop visits or overhauls, certain power turbine (PT) disks may have been damaged in the area of the balance weights. Additional PT disks with non-conforming geometry of the slot radius may have also been released to service as a result of incorrect machining of the PT disk slot.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a PT disk failure, with subsequent release of high-energy debris, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016. The ASB describe procedures for inspection of the PT disk. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the Czech Republic, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires inspection of the engine PT disk and, if found damaged, its replacement with a part eligible for installation.
No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 60 hours per engine to do the inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $0.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 22, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o M601E-11 turboprop engine models with engine power turbine (PT) disk, part number 3220.6 and serial number EE8, EF8, or KR5, installed.
This AD was prompted by discovery of damage to certain engine PT disks during engine shop visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine PT disk, which could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, perform visual, dimensional, and fluorescent penetrant inspections of the engine PT disk. Use Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016, to do the inspections.
(2) If the engine PT disk fails to meet the acceptance criteria in Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016, replace the PT disk with a part eligible for installation.
After the effective date of this AD:
(1) Do not operate any engine with a PT disk serial number listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, unless the disk was inspected per the requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD; and
(2) Do not install a PT disk that does not meet the acceptance criteria in Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0025-E, dated January 26, 2016 (corrected January 27, 2016), for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For GE Aviation Czech s.r.o service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) is issuing a final rule amending the regulations for the
The rule is effective on May 9, 2016. The incorporations by reference of the publications listed in this rule are approved by the Director of the
Troy W. Whitfield, Lead Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; Telephone (301) 504-7548 or email:
The Commission has regulations for residential garage door operators (“GDOs”) to protect consumers from the risk of entrapment. 16 CFR part 1211. The Commission first issued the GDO standard in 1991, at the direction of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 (“Improvement Act”), Public Law 101-608. Section 203 of the Improvement Act mandated that the entrapment protection requirements of the 1988 version of UL's 325, Third Edition, “Standard for Safety for Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window Operators and Systems,” be considered a consumer product safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Section 203(c) of the Improvement Act established procedures for the Commission to revise the Commission's GDO standard. When UL revises the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325, UL must notify the Commission of the revision, and that revision “shall be incorporated in the consumer product safety rule . . . unless, within 30 days of such notice, the Commission notifies [UL] that the Commission has determined that such revision does not carry out the purposes of subsection (b)” [of section 203 of the Improvement Act which mandated the UL 325 entrapment protection requirements initially]. As provided in the Improvement Act, several times in the past, after UL has notified the Commission of changes to UL 325's entrapment protection requirements, the Commission has revised the GDO standard to reflect the UL updates.
The Commission last updated 16 CFR part 1211 in 2007 to reflect changes made to the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325 up to that time that previously had not been reflected in the regulation.
On September 2, 2015, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”), proposing to update 16 CFR part 1211 to reflect recent changes made by UL to the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325. (
Three comments were submitted on the NPR. Two commenters express support for the proposed rule and acknowledge the rule's safety benefits.
Comment: One commenter expresses concern about the public availability and accessibility of documents that are incorporated by reference, by either congressional mandate or through rulemaking. The commenter asserts that it is unclear which version of UL 325 is mandatory law. The commenter also describes the difficulties encountered attempting to purchase UL 325, an attempt to request the standard under FOIA, as well as difficulty accessing UL 325 in government reading rooms or libraries. The commenter also asserts that the Fifth Edition of UL 325 is the current binding law, until the proposed rule is finalized.
The commenter also notes that the NPR proposed incorporating by reference five voluntary standards that are contained in UL 325. The commenter asserts that it is unclear
The commenter contends that it is crucial that these five voluntary standards be made freely available. The commenter notes that the law must be available for all to read because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Response: The commenter misunderstands the mandatory safety standard for automatic residential GDOs. The NPR did not propose incorporating by reference any part of UL 325, nor has any previous rulemaking under 16 CFR part 1211 incorporated by reference any part of UL 325. Therefore, no version of the voluntary standard UL 325 is currently mandatory, nor has it been mandatory in the past. Rather, using appropriate rulemaking procedures, the Commission has based the current and previous mandatory requirements of CPSC's safety standard for automatic residential GDOs in 16 CFR part 1211 on the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325. The NPR proposed revisions to 16 CFR part 1211 based upon revisions made to UL 325, but the NPR does not incorporate by reference any of the provisions of UL 325. All the requirements in the proposed rule are codified or incorporated in 16 CFR part 1211. Therefore, purchase of, or access, to any version UL 325 is not necessary to determine the legal requirements for automatic residential GDOs; all of the requirements for GDOs are stated in 16 CFR part 1211, which is publicly available in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”).
As correctly noted by the commenter, the Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) requires reference to a specific version of a voluntary standard for the standard to be incorporated by reference in the CFR. The preamble and the codified text of the NPR clearly indicated what version of UL 99, UL 1998, and UL 746C was being proposed for incorporation by reference. (
Regarding the incorporation by reference of the ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 voluntary standard in the NPR, the commenter is correct that the link on the DASMA Web site currently is inoperative. After publication of the NPR in the
Regarding the commenter's assertions about the incorporation by reference of five voluntary standards in the NPR, the OFR recently updated 1 CFR part 51, the regulation governing incorporation by reference in the CFR. (Final Rule, 79 FR 66267, November 7, 2014). Responding to comments regarding accessibility, the OFR noted that the final rule for incorporation by reference balanced the standards' reasonable availability with U.S. copyright law, U.S. international trade obligations, and agencies' ability to substantively regulate under their authorizing statutes. The OFR noted that to achieve this balance, the incorporation by reference rule requires that agencies discuss how incorporated materials were made publicly available to the parties, where those materials are located, and provide a summary of those materials in the preambles of rulemaking documents. (
The final rule revises subpart A of the GDO standard and creates a new subpart D to consolidate all of the incorporations by reference in the rule. The final rule does not change the certification (subpart B) or recordkeeping (subpart C) provisions of the GDO standard. The text of the final rule is nearly identical to the NPR, with the few exceptions described below. As explained in the NPR, the Commission is revising several sections of the existing regulation. In addition, the rule adds three new sections (§§ 1211.14 (unattended operation requirements), 1211.15 (vertically moving combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system) and 1211.40 (consolidating all of the incorporations by reference in one place).
Changes to the rule reflect changes that UL made to the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325. UL added requirements for certain types of GDOs that were not previously covered by the GDO standard. Most of the revisions to the GDO standard involve adding requirements for these types of GDOs and making changes related to these provisions. In addition, UL added requirements for unattended operation of GDOs and for wireless control and communications. Finally, UL made several editorial changes throughout the standard to provide better descriptions of the appropriate requirements and test conditions. UL also revised dimensional tolerances on test fixtures so that the fixtures can be manufactured using generally available machine tools. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission is incorporating these changes into the Commission's GDO standard at 16 CFR part 1211.
ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 provides requirements for installation/operation, maintenance, durability, and identification of GDO systems with the name and address of the door system manufacturer, loads, in addition to general requirements. This ANSI/DASMA standard is available from ANSI/DASMA, or the standard may be examined at the offices of the
Additionally, the revised UL standard requires that the instructions for combination sectional overhead GDOs must specify: (1) The operator by manufacturer and model; (2) the doors by manufacturer, model, and maximum and minimum door width and height required for compliance to the entrapment protection requirements; (3) the hardware required to meet the entrapment protection requirements (§ 1211.16(a)(13)); and (4) how to properly counterbalance the door ((§ 1211.16(a)(14)). Finally, combination sectional overhead GDOs must be provided with permanent labels that contain specific warnings (§ 1211.17(k)) and markings (§ 1211.17 (m)). The rule includes these requirements in the sections indicated.
UL added a new test method for GDOs that use an array of “vertical” photoelectric sensors as a non-contact external entrapment protection device. The rule includes this new test method (§ 1211.11 (d)(4) and new paragraph (f)). The new method verifies that the “vertical” sensors function properly.
• Electronic instructions (§ 1211.16(a)(10)) may be provided on alternate sources, such as CD-ROM, USB flash drive, or company Web site.
• For GDOs for one-piece doors that have an unattended operation function, certain markings are not required if the GDO automatically senses door operation (§§ 1211.16(b)(1)(ii), 1211.17(h), and 1211.18(m)),
• The requirements for UL markings for voltage, frequency, and input are clarified (§ 1211.18(b)(3) and (4)).
• UL marking requirements for risk of entrapment on GDOs that have user adjustments (§ 1211.18(i)) shall be located where visible to the user when making adjustments.
• Requirements for the external entrapment protection device (
• The requirements for the switch or relay used in the entrapment protection circuit (§ 1211.6(f)) are clarified by stating that the switch or relay must be capable of operating at a minimum cycling of 100,000 cycles, as intended in the GDO without failing,
As mentioned above, the rule reflects a few minor and editorial changes in UL 325, Sixth Edition, February 24, 2016 Revision. In addition, the final rule is adding a new subpart D to consolidate the incorporations by reference in the proposed rule in one location. The rule reflects the revisions below:
• Update the incorporation by reference in § 1211.6(c) from ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 to the more recent and available ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 voluntary standard.
• Add a new subpart D titled Incorporation by Reference, with a new § 1211.40 that centralizes the IBR paragraphs from the NPR in one location.
• Add a new cross reference in § 1211.8 (f) to § 1211.6(b)(3).
• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(3) to add the word “pull” before rope, and add two commas.
• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(6) to insert “above floors, landings, steps, or any
• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(9) by striking the proposed language and replacing with “For products having a manual release, instruct the end user on the operation of the manual release.”
• Create a new § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(10), and insert the language from proposed § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(9) in the new § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(10).
As noted above, a new subpart D titled Incorporation by Reference, with a new § 1211.40 that centralizes the IBR paragraphs from the NPR in one location is being added to the final rule. In addition, the rule updates the existing incorporations by reference in the mandatory rule to the most recent version of the appropriate voluntary standard, as follows:
• NFPA 70 (The standard addresses the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways in commercial, residential, and industrial occupancies.)(§§ 1211.2(c) and 1211.40(c));
• UL 991 (The requirements apply to controls that employ solid-state devices and are intended for specified safety-related protective functions.)(§§ 1211.4(c), 1211.5(c) and 1211.40(d)(2));
• UL 1998 (These requirements apply to non-networked embedded microprocessor software whose failure is capable of resulting in a risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons.)(§§ 1211.8(f) and 1211.40(d)(3)); and
• UL 746C (These requirements cover parts made of polymeric materials that are used in electrical equipment and describe the various test procedures and their use in the testing of such parts and equipment.)(§§ 1211.10(d) and (e), 1211.12(c)(2), and 1211.40(d)(1)).
In addition, §§ 1211.6(c) and 1211.40(b) of the final rule adds a new incorporation by reference for ANSI/DASMA 102-2011. The NPR proposed incorporating ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 in § 1211.6(c) of the rule, but since publication of the NPR, DASMA has released a more recent version of the standard ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, dated May 19, 2011, on its Web site. The Commission is incorporating ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 instead of the ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 as proposed in the NPR because it is the most recent version of the standard and the one available on the DASMA Web site.
The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble, the ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, this section and section C of this preamble summarize the provisions of the voluntary standards that the rule incorporates by reference:
• Specifications for Sectional Doors, ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, dated May 19, 2011. ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 is copyrighted. Copies may be obtained from the Door and Access Systems Manufacturers' Association, International, 1300 Sumner Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851, telephone (216) 241-7333, or online at:
• National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 2014 edition, effective August 21, 2013. NFPA 70 is copyrighted. Copies may be obtained from the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101,
• Standard for Safety for Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, UL 991, Third Edition, dated October 22, 2004.
• Standard for Safety for Software in Programmable Components, UL 1998, Third Edition, dated December 18, 2013.
• Standard for Safety for Polymeric Materials—Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations, UL 746C, Sixth Edition, dated September 10, 2004.
The UL standards listed above are copyrighted. The UL standards may be obtained from UL, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 or online at:
The NPR proposed a 30-day effective date from the date of publication of the final rule in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for the rules' potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The Commission certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) in the NPR. 80 FR 53036, 53039. The Commission did not receive any comments that questioned or challenged this certification, nor has CPSC staff received any other information that would require a change or revision to the Commission's previous analysis of the impact of the rule on small entities. Therefore, the certification of no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities is still appropriate.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because the rules “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.
The Improvement Act contains a preemption provision that states: “those provisions of laws of States or political subdivisions which relate to the labeling of automatic residential garage door openers and those provisions which do not provide at least the equivalent degree of protection from the risk of injury associated with automatic residential garage door openers as the consumer product safety rule” are subject to preemption under 15 U.S.C. 2075. Public Law 101-608, section 203(f).
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1211 as follows:
Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 101-608, 104 Stat. 3110; 15 U.S.C. 2063 and 2065.
(c) Is intended to be employed in ordinary locations in accordance with NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.32).
(c) An electronic or solid-state circuit that performs a back-up, limiting, or other function intended to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons, including entrapment protection circuits, shall comply with the requirements in UL 991 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40), including environmental and stress tests appropriate to the intended usage of the end-product.
(a) * * *
(1) With regard to electrical supervision of critical components, an operator being inoperative with respect to closing movement of the door meets the criteria for trouble indication.
(6) When a Computational Investigation is conducted, λ
(b) In the evaluation of entrapment protection circuits used in residential garage door operators, the critical condition flow chart shown in Figure 1 to subpart A shall be used:
(3) During the Power Cycling Safety for Tests in accordance with UL 991 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).
(a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with inherent primary entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.
(b) In addition to the inherent primary entrapment protection as required by paragraph (a) of this section, a vertically moving residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:
(1) Shall be constructed to:
(i) Require constant pressure on a control intended to be installed and activated within line of sight of the door to lower the door;
(ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its lower limit, and
(iii) Limit a portable transmitter, when supplied, to function only to cause the operator to open the door;
(2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.11; or
(3)(i) Shall be provided with an inherent secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8(a), 1211.8(c), 1211.8(f), 1211.10, and 1211.12 and is:
(A) A combination sectional overhead garage door operator system as described in § 1211.6(c); and
(B) For use only with vertically moving garage doors.
(ii) With respect to § 1211.6(b)(3)(i)(A), trolley-driven operators do not meet the definition of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system.
(c) In the case of a vertically moving combination sectional overhead garage door operator system, the door shall comply with the requirements in ANSI/DASMA 102 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).
(d) In addition to the inherent primary entrapment protection as required by § 1211.6(a), a horizontally sliding residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:
(1) Shall be constructed to:
(i) Require constant pressure on a control to close the door;
(ii) Reverse direction and open the door a minimum of 2 in (50.8 mm) when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its position limit; and
(iii) Stop the door if a second obstruction is detected in the reverse direction.
(2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device for each leading edge as described in § 1211.8.
(e) A mechanical switch or a relay used in an entrapment protection circuit of an operator shall withstand 100,000 cycles of operation controlling a load no less severe (voltage, current, power factor, inrush and similar ratings) than it controls in the operator, and shall function normally upon completion of the test.
(f) In addition to complying with paragraph (e) of this section, in the event of a malfunction of a switch or relay (open or short) described in paragraph (c) of this section results in loss of any entrapment protection required by §§ 1211.7(a), 1211.7(b)(7), 1211.7(c)(7), 1211.8(a), or 1211.8(b), the door operator shall become inoperative at the end of the opening or closing operation, the door operator shall move the door to, and stay within, 1 foot (305 mm) of the uppermost position.
(a)
(b)
(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.
(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(2) The test shall be performed on a representative operating system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions with the operator exerting a 25-lbf (111.21-N) pull or its rated pull, whichever is greater.
(3)(i) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.
(ii) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.
(iii) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(7)(iii), and (b)(8)(iii) of this section and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.
(4) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.
(5) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.
(6) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements at § 1211.18.
(7)(i) An operator, employing an inherent entrapment protection system that measures or monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating “profile” of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall measure or monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).
(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.
(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(8)(i) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not measure or monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door, to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.
(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
(9) To determine compliance with paragraph (b)(7) or (8) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (6) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and § 1211.8(a) or (b) are to be defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a lower limiting device.
(10) During the closing cycle referred to in paragraph (b)(9) of this section, the system providing compliance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (7) of this section or paragraphs (b)(1) and (8) of this section shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.
(c)
(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when the operator senses a second obstruction during the closing direction of travel.
(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during movement towards the open position—but the door can not be moved towards the open position until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(2) The test shall be performed on a representative operating system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions with the operator exerting a 25-lbf (111.21-N) pull or its rated pull, whichever is greater.
(3)(i) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and rigidly supported within the bottom track and then repeated with the solid object placed on the floor and rigidly supported external to the track. The test shall then be repeated with the solid object rigidly supported at heights of 1 ft (305 mm), 3 ft (914 mm), 5 ft (1524 mm), and within 1 ft (305 mm) of the top edge. The object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) in width.
(ii) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center and within 1 ft of each end of the door opening.
(iii) To test operators for compliance with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(7)(iii), and (c)(8)(iii) of this section, and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 in (152 mm) long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4 in (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position with the test repeated with the bottom edge of the obstruction rigidly supported at heights of 1 ft (305 mm), 3ft (914 mm), 5ft (1524 mm), and within 1 ft (305 mm) of the top edge.
(4) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.
(5) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.
(6) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both of these types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements in § 1211.18.
(7)(i) An operator, employing an inherent entrapment protection control that measures or monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully closed position in the event the inherent door operation “profile” of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The system shall measure or monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).
(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the reversing travel.
(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening direction—but the door can not be moved in the closing direction until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(8)(i) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not measure or monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when the closed position limit device is not actuated within 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.
(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the reversing travel.
(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening direction—but the door can not be moved in the closing direction until the operator has reversed the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its closing, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
(9) To determine compliance with paragraph (c)(7) or (8) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (c)(4) and (6) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section and § 1211.8(b) are to be inoperative or defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a position limiting device.
(10) During the closing cycle referred to in paragraph (c)(9) of this section, the system providing compliance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (7) of this section or paragraphs (c)(1) and (8) of this section shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.
(a)(1) For a vertically moving door operator, a secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of:
(i) An external photoelectric sensor that when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door, returns the door to, and stops the door at the fully open position, and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,
(ii) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door, returns the door to, and stops the door at the fully open position, and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,
(iii) An inherent door sensor independent of the system used to
(iv) Any other external or internal device that provides entrapment protection equivalent to paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully open position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the opening travel.
(3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully open position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening travel—but the door cannot be moved towards the closing direction until the operator has reversed the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(b) For horizontal sliding garage door operators, a secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of:
(1) An external photoelectric sensor that, when activated, results in an operator that is closing or opening a door to reverse direction of the door for a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm); or
(2) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated, results in an operator that is closing or opening a door to reverse direction of the door for a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
(c) With respect to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the operator shall monitor for the presence and correct operation of the device at least once during each close cycle. Should the device not be present or a fault condition occurs which precludes the sensing of an obstruction, including an interruption of the wireless signal to the wireless device or an open or short circuit in the wiring that connects an external entrapment protection device to the operator and device's supply source, the operator shall be constructed such that:
(1) For a vertically moving door, the closing door shall open and an open door shall not close more than 1 foot (305 mm) below the upmost position;
(2) For a horizontally sliding door, the door shall not move in the opening or closing direction; or
(3) The operator shall function as required by § 1211.6(b)(1).
(d) An external entrapment protection device or system, when employing a wireless control, shall comply with paragraph (e) of this section when installed at its farthest distance from the operator as recommended in the installation instructions.
(e) An external entrapment protection device shall comply with the applicable requirements in §§ 1211.10, 1211.11, and 1211.12.
(f) An inherent secondary entrapment protection device described in § 1211.6(b)(3) shall comply with the applicable requirements in § 1211.13. Software used in an inherent entrapment protection device shall comply with UL 1998 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).
(a) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.16(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. The obstructing object, as described in § 1211.7(b)(3)(i), is to be located in several different positions. A marking with instructions for detaching the operator shall be provided as required by § 1211.17(a), (b), and (j), as applicable.
(b) * * *
(2) The door is capable of being moved to the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point from any position between closed and the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point.
(c) Actuation of a control that initiates movement of a door shall stop and may reverse the door on the closing cycle. On the opening cycle, actuation of a control shall stop the door but not reverse it.
(a)
(2) The device is to be installed in the intended manner and its terminals connected to circuits of the door operator as indicated by the installation instructions.
(3) The device is to be installed and tested at minimum and maximum heights and widths representative of recommended ranges specified in the installation instructions. For doors, if not specified, devices are to be tested on a minimum 7 foot (2.1 m) wide door and maximum 20 foot (6.1 m) wide door.
(4) If powered by a separate source of power, the power-input supply terminals are to be connected to supply circuits of rated voltage and frequency.
(5) An external entrapment protection device requiring alignment, such as a photoelectric sensor, shall be provided with a means, such as a visual indicator, to show proper alignment and operation of the device.
(b)
(2) To determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an external entrapment protection device is to be connected to a door operator or other source of power in the intended manner, after which all connections to low voltage terminals or leads are to be reversed as pairs, reversed individually, or connected to any low voltage lead or adjacent terminal.
(3) After restoring the connections in the intended manner:
(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and
(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation test, per § 1211.12(a).
(c)
(2) External entrapment protection devices are to be indirectly sprayed using a hose having the free end fitted with a nozzle as illustrated in Figure 2 to subpart A and connected to a water supply capable of maintaining a flow rate of 5 gallons (19 liters) per minute as measured at the outlet orifice of the nozzle. The water from the hose is to be played, from all sides and at any angle against the floor under the device in such a manner most likely to cause water to splash the enclosure of electric components. However, the nozzle is not to be brought closer than 10 feet (3.05
(3) After drying the external surface of the device:
(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and
(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Test, per § 1211.12(a).
(iii) There shall be no water on uninsulated live parts of a line voltage circuit.
(d)
(e)
(i) There shall be no cracking or breaking of the part; and
(ii) The part shall operate as intended, per paragraph (e)(4) of this section, or, if dislodged after the test, is capable of being restored to its original condition.
(2) Samples of the external entrapment protection device are to be subjected to the Resistance to Impact Test described in UL 746C (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40). The external entrapment protection device is to be subjected to 5 foot-pound (6.8 J) impacts. Three samples are to be tested, each sample being subjected to three impacts at different points.
(3) In lieu of conducting the room temperature test described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, each of three samples of a device exposed to outdoor weather when the door is the closed position are to be cooled to a temperature of minus 31.0 ± 3.6 °F (minus 35.0 ± 2.0 °C) and maintained at this temperature for 3 hours. Three samples of a device employed inside the garage are to be cooled to a temperature of 32.0 °F (0.0 °C) and maintained at this temperature for 3 hours. While the sample is still cold, the samples are to be subjected to the impact test described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(4) To determine compliance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section:
(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and
(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Test, per § 1211.12(a).
(f)
(ii) An entrapment protection device or system employing a wireless control, or separately supplied for, shall be installed per the manufacturer's instructions.
(2)
(ii) Compliance to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section is verified by simulating an obstruction during the period of the electric field strength test of § 1211.4(c).
(g)
(2) Compliance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall be verified with battery charge at the following levels:
(i) Fully charged; and
(ii) Discharged per the manufacturer's recommendations to the wireless device's lowest operational voltage.
(3) An external entrapment protection device employing a battery powered wireless device operating under conditions with a fully discharged battery or when the battery is discharged sufficiently to cause the device or system to render the moving door inoperative, shall be considered a single point fault for complying with §§ 1211.5(b) and 1211.8(c).
(h)
(2) An external entrapment protection device when employing an IR communication shall be set up at maximum range per paragraph (h)(1) of this section. The ambient light test described in § 1211.11(e)(2) shall be conducted with the light source impinging on each IR receiver, one at a time that is part of the wireless control system between the external entrapment protection device and the operator.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The moving object is to consist of a 1
(3) The test described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section is to be conducted at three points over the width of the door opening, at distances of 1 foot (305 mm) from each end and the midpoint.
(4) When the test fixture of Figure 4 to subpart A, prior to conduct of the test, interferes with the photoelectric sensor detection zone, the tests per paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section may be conducted instead per paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(e)
(2) To determine compliance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a 500 watt incandescent or equivalent minimum rated, 3600K or lower color rated flood lamp is to be energized from a 120-volt, 60-hertz source. The lamp is to be positioned 5 feet from the front of the receiver and aimed directly at the sensor at an angle of 15 to 20 degrees from the axis of the beam. See Figure 5 to subpart A.
(3) If the photoelectric sensor uses a reflector, this test is to be repeated with the lamp aimed at the reflector.
(4) During the test conditions described in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section, a photoelectric sensor shall comply with the normal operation test requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section, and
(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with sensitivity test requirements described in paragraph (d) of this section, and
(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the normal operation test requirements described in § 1211.12.
(f)
(2) The array shall comply with the Normal Operation tests specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, with the solid obstruction placed on the floor. In addition, the obstruction shall be placed at various locations over the height of the light curtain array in accordance with the light curtain coverage area per the manufacturer's instructions.
(3) In conducting the tests specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, when the product includes a blanking function whereby the light array is located directly in-line with the path of the door travel, and the door system is intended to detect any obstruction other than one in the “next” successive position that the door is programmed to travel, the obstruction is placed at any location other than the next successive door position expected by the system.
(4) The array shall comply with the Sensitivity Test specified in paragraph (d) of this section, except that the edge of the pendulum nearest to the array is to be located 2 in. (50.8 mm) from one side of the plane of the array, rather than directly above one photoelectric sensor pair. For vertical arrays, this test need only be conducted with the test pendulum at the vertical height indicated in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) When conducting the Ambient Light Test specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the position of the light source shall be aligned per paragraph (e)(2) of this section based on the axis of the lowest beam or detection zone. This arrangement shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section (with the obstruction at the floor level) and paragraph (f)(4) of this section, which are the only conditions for which the ambient light is required to be applied.
(a) * * *
(1) When installed on a representative residential door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 pounds (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 1
(c) * * *
(1) An elastomeric material used as a functional part of an edge sensor shall function as intended when subjected to:
(i) Accelerated Aging Test of Gaskets, stated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section,
(ii) Compliance to the Standard for Gaskets and Seals, UL 157, fulfills this requirement (see paragraph (c)(2) of this section for UL contact information); and
(iii) Puncture Resistance Test, stated in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) An elastomeric material used for a functional part that is exposed to outdoor weather conditions when the door is in the closed position shall have physical properties as specified in the Table to subpart A after being conditioned in accordance with the Ultraviolet Light Exposure Test described in UL 746C (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).
(d)
(i) Not be damaged in a manner that would adversely affect the intended operation of the edge sensor, and
(ii) Maintain enclosure integrity if it serves to reduce the likelihood of contamination of electrical contacts.
(2) For a vertically moving door, a sample of the edge sensor is to be installed in the intended manner on a representative door edge. The probe described in Figure 7 to subpart A is to be applied with a 20 pound-force (89N) to any point on the sensor that is 3 inches (76 mm) or less above the floor is to be applied in the direction specified in the Edge Sensor Normal Operation Test, Figure 6 to subpart A. The test is to be repeated on three locations on each surface of the sensor being tested.
(3) For horizontally sliding doors, sample of the edge sensor is to be installed in the intended manner on a representative door edge. The probe described in Figure 7 to subpart A is to be applied with a 20 lbf (89 N) to any point on the sensor when the door is within 3 in (76 mm) of its fully open position and within 3 in (76 mm) of any stationary wall. For each type of door, the force is to be applied in the direction specified in the Edge Sensor Normal Operation Test, Figure 6 to subpart A. The test is to be repeated on three locations on each surface of the sensor being tested.
(a)
(2) The system shall actuate with the maximum and minimum specifications of the door, operator, and hardware.
(3) Tests conducted per paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section shall be performed with the force exerted by a drive adjusted to its highest value if the force can be adjusted by the user during use or user maintenance.
(4) The test cylinder referred to in paragraph (b)(7) of this section shall be a 1
(5) The measuring device referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall:
(i) Have an accuracy of +/−1%;
(ii) Have a rise and fall time not exceeding 5 ms;
(iii) Have the equivalence of a spring constant of 2855 lb/in +/−285 lb/in (500 N/mm, +/−50 N/mm);
(iv) Be placed on a rigid, level surface; and
(v) Have a rigid plate with a diameter of 3.1 in (80 mm).
(vi) See paragraph (a)(6) of this section for test equipment alternatives for force measurements at 1 ft (305 mm) or greater for the tests conducted per paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
(6) With regard to the alternative test equipment referred to in paragraph (a)(5)(vi) of this section, the test device described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section for force measurements at 1 foot (305 mm) or greater shall be:
(i) A spring constant means such as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(ii) A gravity based weight displacing means that suspends a weight off its supporting surface upon exceeding 15 lbf (67 N) such as the example shown in figures 8 through 10 of this subpart if the equipment described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section is applied before the tests specified in paragraph (c) of this section and after the tests specified in paragraph (d) of this section at the 1 ft (305 mm) height specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section; or
(iii) The equivalent requirements of paragraphs (a)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(7) The cycles specified in paragraph (d) of this section are not required to be consecutive. Continuous operation of the motor without cooling is not required.
(b)
(i) 90 lbf (400 N) or less average during the first 0.75 seconds after 15 lbf (67 N) is exceeded from initial impact; and
(ii) 15 lbf (67 N) or less from 0.75 seconds after 15 lbf (67 N) is exceeded from initial impact until the door reverses.
(2) The test referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be conducted at the following test height and locations along the edge of the door:
(i) The center point, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor;
(ii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the end of the door, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor; and
(iii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the other end of the door, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor.
(3) The maximum force specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be tested by the door applying a force against the longitudinal edge of the test cylinder described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(4) The equipment used to measure force for the test described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(5) The door shall stop and reverse within 2 seconds after contacting the obstruction. The door shall apply a load of 15 lbf (67 N) or less in the closing direction along the path of door travel at the locations noted in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(6) The test described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be conducted at the following points along the edge of the door:
(i) At the center at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft (305 mm, 914 mm and 1.52 m) from the floor;
(ii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the end of the door, at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft from the floor; and
(iii) Within 1 ft of the other end of the door at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft from the floor.
(7) The maximum force described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be tested by the door applying a force against the longitudinal edge of the test cylinder as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(8) The equipment used to measure forces for the test described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) or (6) of this section.
(c)
(2) The test described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be conducted with the door starting from the fully closed position and at heights of approximately 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft (305 mm, 914 mm and 1.52 m) from the floor.
(3) Test weight(s) shall be applied to sections of the door that are vertical in the initial stopped position for each test height prior to operator activation.
(d)
(2) The tests described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall be repeated upon completion of cycling test.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(2) Unattended operation shall not be permitted on one-piece garage doors or swinging garage doors. An operator intended for use with both sectional doors and one-piece or swinging doors that have an unattended operation close feature shall identify that the unattended operation closing feature is only permitted to be enabled when installed with a sectional door by complying with:
(i) The installation instructions stated in § 1211.16(b)(1)(ii);
(ii) The markings specified in § 1211.17(h); and
(iii) The carton markings specified in § 1211.18(m) when the carton references the unattended operation close feature.
(b)
(c)
(2) The alarm shall signal for a minimum of 5 seconds before any unattended closing door movement.
(3) The audible signal shall be heard within the confines of a garage. The audio alarm signals for the alarm specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be generated by devices such as bells, horns, sirens, or buzzers. The signal shall have a frequency in the range of 700 to 3400 Hz, either a cycle of the sound level pulsations of 4 to 5 per second or one continuous tone, a sound level at least 45 dB 10 ft (305 cm) in front of the device over the voltage range of operation.
(4) The visual alarm signal described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be visible within the confines of a garage using a flashing light of at least 40 watt incandescent or 360 lumens.
(d)
(2) Upon activation of a user door control during unattended door movement, the door shall stop, and may reverse the door on the closing cycle. On the opening cycle, activation of a user door control shall stop the door but not reverse it.
(3) If an unattended door travelling in the closing direction is stopped and reversed by an entrapment protection device, the operator system shall be permitted one additional unattended operation attempt to close the door.
(4) After two attempts per paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the operator system shall suspend unattended operation. The operator system shall require a renewed, intended input, via user door control (
(e)
(a) A vertically moving combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system shall comply with the applicable residential garage door operator requirements in this standard and shall additionally comply with the following:
(1) The speed of the door edge during the opening or closing motion shall not exceed 6 in (152 mm) per second.
(2) The system shall be supplied with two additional independent secondary entrapment protection devices complying with Secondary Entrapment Protection, § 1211.8. When photoelectric sensors are used, a minimum of two sensors in addition to a third secondary device shall be supplied. The instructions shall state that one photoelectric sensor shall be positioned to comply with § 1211.11 and the other(s) shall be positioned on the left and right sides of the door to detect solid objects that would be within the space where the door moves as it opens or closes.
(3) A means to manually detach both door operators from the door shall be provided. For systems where the mechanical drive is located on a wall adjacent to the door, the manual detachment means is not required to comply with § 1211.9(a). Instead, the manual detachment means shall be located 5 ft (1.52 m) above the floor, shall not require a torque of more than 5 ft-lb (6.78 N-m) to initiate disconnection when the door is obstructed, and shall be clearly marked with operating instructions adjacent to the mechanism. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be distinguishable from the rest of the operator. The marking which includes instructions for detaching the operator shall be provided in accordance with § 1211.17(a), (b), and (j) as applicable.
(4) A means (interlock) shall be supplied to de-energize the operator whenever the operator is manually detached from the door.
(5) A means (interlock) shall be supplied to de-energize the operator whenever an operable window or access (service) door that is mounted in the garage door is opened perpendicular to the surface of the garage door.
(6) The door shall not move outward from the exterior wall surface during the opening or closing cycle.
(7) The moving parts of the door or door system (mounting hardware, track assembly, and components that make up the door) shall be guarded.
(8) A horizontal track assembly, including installation hardware, shall support a dead load equal to the door weight when the door is in the horizontal position.
(9) Instructions for the installation of operable windows and access (service) doors and the interlocks specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section shall be supplied with the operator.
(b) [Reserved]
(a)
(2) Instructions that clearly detail installation and adjustment procedures required to effect proper operation of the safety means provided shall be provided with each door operator.
(3) A residential garage door or door operator shall be provided with complete and specific instructions for the correct adjustment of the control mechanism and the need for periodic checking and, if needed, adjustment of the control mechanism so as to maintain satisfactory operation of the door.
(4) The instruction manual shall include the important instructions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. All required text shall be legible and contrast with the background. Upper case letters of required text shall be no less than
(5) The instructions listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section shall be in the exact words specified or shall be in equally definitive terminology to those specified. No substitutes shall be used for the word “Warning.” The items may be numbered. The first and last items specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be first and last respectively. Other important and precautionary items considered appropriate by the manufacturer may be inserted.
(6) The instructions listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be located immediately prior to the installation instructions. The instructions listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be located immediately prior to user operation and maintenance instructions. In each case, the instructions shall be separate in format from other detailed instructions related to installation, operation and maintenance of the operator. All instructions, except installation instructions, shall be a permanent part of the manual(s).
(7) For an operator or system provided with an external entrapment protection device requiring a non-rechargeable battery, instructions shall be provided with the operator and/or the device for:
(i) The rating, size, number, and type of battery(s) to be used; and
(ii) The proper insertion, polarity, orientation, and replacement of the battery(s).
(8) For an operator or system provided with an external entrapment protection device or system utilizing wireless control, instructions shall be provided with the operator and/or the device for:
(i) The proper method of configuring and initializing the wireless communication link between device and operator;
(ii) The proper orientation, antenna positioning, and mounting location with regard to maintaining communication link between device and operator;
(iii) The maximum range at which the wireless device will operate; and
(iv) The proper location of the device where the transmission of the signals are not obstructed or impeded by building structures, natural landscaping or similar obstruction.
(9) When provided with a detachable supply cord, the operator instructions shall contain complete details concerning proper selection of the power supply cord replacement.
(10) The installation, operation, and maintenance instructions may be provided in electronic read-only media format only, such as CD-ROM, USB flash drive, or company Web site, if the following instructions are additionally provided with the operator in an instruction sheet, manual, booklet, or similar printed material:
(i) Residential garage doors and door operators, instructions of this section, as applicable.
(ii) [Reserved]
(11) The printed instruction material referenced in this section shall contain detailed instructions of how to obtain a printed copy of the material contained in electronic format.
(12) All printed instruction material referenced in this section shall also be provided in the electronic read-only media format.
(13) Instructions of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall specify:
(i) The operator by manufacturer and model;
(ii) The door(s) by manufacturer(s), model(s), and maximum and minimum door width and height required for compliance to § 1211.6(a) and (c); and
(iii) Hardware required for compliance to § 1211.6(a) and (c).
(14) Installation and maintenance instructions of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall indicate how to properly counter-balance the door.
(b)
(1)(i) The Installation Instructions shall include the following instructions:
Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death:
1. Read and follow all Installation Instructions.
2. Install only a properly balanced garage door. An improperly balanced door could cause severe injury. Have a qualified service person make repairs to cables, spring assemblies and other hardware before installing opener.
3. Remove all pull ropes and remove, or make inoperative, all locks connected to the garage door before installing opener.
4. Where possible, install door opener 7 feet or more above the floor. For products requiring an emergency release, mount the emergency release within reach, but at least 6 feet above the floor and avoiding contact with vehicles to avoid accidental release.
5. Do not connect opener to source of power until instructed to do so.
6. Locate control button: (a) Within sight of door, (b) at a minimum height of 5 feet above floors, landings, steps, or any other adjacent walking surface so small children cannot reach it, and (c) away from all moving parts of the door.
7. Install Entrapment Warning Label next to the control button in a prominent location. Install the Emergency Release Marking. Attach the marking on or next to the emergency release.
8. After installing opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 1
9. For products having a manual release, instruct the end user on the operation of the manual release.
10. For horizontally sliding doors, Item 2 shall be replaced with “Have a qualified service person make repairs and hardware adjustments before installing the opener.”
(ii) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), the installation instructions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional and one-piece door that has an unattended operation close feature shall comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section and include:
“WARNING: To reduce the risk of injury to persons—Only enable [+] feature when installed with a sectional door,” where + is the unattended operation function.
(iii) Exception: For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, the warning in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section is not required.
(iv) For residential garage door operators that do not have permanent connection of the wiring system, the installation instructions shall include the following or equivalent text: “This operator not equipped for permanent wiring. Contact licensed electrician to install a suitable receptacle if one is not available.”
(2) The User Instructions shall include the following instructions:
Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death:
1. READ AND FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS.
2. Never let children operate, or play with door controls. Keep the remote control away from children.
3. Always keep the moving door in sight and away from people and objects until it is completely closed. No one should cross the path of the moving door.
4. NEVER GO UNDER A STOPPED PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR.
5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 1
6. For products requiring an emergency release, if possible, use the emergency release only when the door is closed. Use caution when using this release with the door open. Weak or broken springs may allow the door to fall rapidly, causing injury or death.
7. KEEP GARAGE DOOR PROPERLY BALANCE. See user's manual. An improperly balanced door could cause severe injury or death. Have a qualified service person make repairs to cables, spring assemblies and other hardware.
8. For operator systems equipped with an unattended operation feature, the following statement shall be included: “This operator system is equipped with an unattended operation feature. The door could move unexpectedly. NO ONE SHOULD CROSS THE PATH OF THE MOVING DOOR.”
9. SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
10. For horizontally moving doors, Item 4 shall be replaced with “NEVER GO THROUGH A STOPPED, PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR”.
11. For horizontally moving doors, Item 6 is not required.
12. For horizontally moving doors, Item 7 shall be replaced with “Have a qualified service person make repairs and hardware adjustments before installing the opener.”
13. The installation instructions provided with a combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system shall specify the locations where attachments to the horizontal track shall be made for the purpose of supporting the track.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) For products equipped with an unattended operation feature, the instructions shall include the following: “This operator system is equipped with an unattended operation feature. The door could move unexpectedly.”
(h)(1) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), the instructions of a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional doors and either one-piece or swinging doors and are provided with an unattended operation feature shall comply with paragraph (g) of this section and include the following under the avoidance statements of paragraph (g)(2) of this section:
“Only enable [+] feature when installed with a sectional door.”, or equivalent, where + is the unattended operation closing function.
(2) For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, this warning is not required.
(k) Both the operator and the door that comprise a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall be provided with permanent labels. The labels shall contain the following statement or the equivalent: “WARNING: THIS OPERATOR AND DOOR FUNCTION AS A SYSTEM. IF EITHER THE DOOR OR THE HARDWARE MUST BE REPLACED, THE REPLACEMENT DOOR OR HARDWARE MUST BE IDENTICAL TO THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT WITH RESPECT TO MANUFACTURER AND MODEL TO MAINTAIN THE SAFETY OF THE SYSTEM. SEE INSTRUCTION MANUAL.” The marking shall be visible to the user after installation without the need to remove any covers.
(l) A label specified in paragraph (m) of this section when intended to be affixed during installation shall:
(1) Be provided with the operator or door assembly; and
(2) Have installation instructions of how and where to install the label so that it is visible to the user after installation.
(m) The operator of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall be provided with a permanent marking that contains the following statement or the equivalent: “NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE.”
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) The voltage, frequency, and input in amperes, VA, or watts. The ampere or VA rating shall be included unless the full-load power factor is 80 percent or more, or, for a cord-connected appliance, unless the rating is 50 W or less. The number of phases shall be indicated when an appliance is for use on a polyphase circuit; and
(c) The date code repetition cycle shall not be less than 20 years.
(f) Exception No 3: The input in amperes or watts may be shown as part of the motor nameplate, if the appliance employs a single motor, the nameplate is readily visible after the appliance has been installed.
(i) For products with user adjustments, a residential garage door operator shall be marked with the word “WARNING” and the following or equivalent, “Risk of entrapment. After adjusting either the force or limits of travel adjustments, insure that the door reverses on a 1
(j) For a separately supplied accessory, including external entrapment protection device, the instructions, packaging, or marking on the product shall indicate the accessory manufacturer's name and or model number and the type of appliance or appliances with which it is intended to be used—such as a residential garage door operator. Additionally, installation instructions, accompanying specifications sheet, or packaging of the accessory shall identify the appliance or appliances with which it is intended to be used by specifying the manufacturer's name and catalog or model number or by any other positive means to serve the identification purpose.
(k) An appliance provided with terminals or connectors for connection of a separately supplied accessory, such as an external entrapment protection device or system, shall be marked to identify the accessory intended to be connected to the terminals or connectors. The accessory identification shall be by manufacturer's name and catalog or model number or other means to allow for the identification of accessories intended for use with the appliance.
(m)(1) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional and one-piece or swinging door that has an unattended operation close feature indicating the function in the carton markings shall include the following carton marking:
“WARNING: To reduce the risk of injury to persons—Only enable [+] feature when installed with sectional door,” where + is the unattended operation closing function.
(2) Exception: For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, this warning is not required.
(n) A residential garage door operator is not required to be provided with permanent wiring systems when marked with the following or equivalent text: “This operator not equipped for permanent wiring. Contact licensed electrician to install a suitable receptacle if one is not available.” This marking is to be placed adjacent to the power cord entry.
(b) The display of the UL logo or listing mark, and compliance with the date marking requirements stated in § 1211.18 of this subpart, on both the container and the system, shall satisfy the requirements of this subpart.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 302-504-7923 and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
(b) Door and Access Systems Manufacturers' Association, International (DASMA), 1300 Sumner Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851, Telephone: (216) 241-7333,
(1) ANSI/DASMA 102, Specifications for Sectional Doors, 2011 revision, dated May 19, 2011, into § 1211.6(c).
(2) [Reserved].
(c) National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, Telephone: (800) 344-3555,
(1) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2014 edition, effective August 21, 2013, into § 1211.2(c).
(2) [Reserved].
(d) UL, formerly Underwriters Laboratories, International, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Telephone: 1-888-853-3503,
(1) UL 746C, Standard for Safety: Polymeric Materials—Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations, Sixth Edition, dated September 10, 2004, into §§ 1211.10(d) and (e) and 1211.12(c).
(2) UL 991, Standard for Safety: Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, Third Edition, dated October 22, 2004, into §§ 1211.4(c) and 1211.5(b)(3).
(3) UL 1998, Standard for Safety: Software in Programmable Components, Third Edition, December 18, 2013, into § 1211.8(f).
Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor.
Final rule; OMB approval of information collection requirements.
The Office of Labor-Management Standards of the Department of Labor (“Department”) published a final rule on March 24, 2016. The final rule revises the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report and the Form LM-10 Employer Report, which are filed with the Department pursuant to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). In the final rule, the Department revises its interpretation of the advice exemption in section 203(c) of the LMRDA to better effectuate section 203's requirement that employers and their labor relations consultants report activities undertaken with an object, directly or indirectly, to persuade employees about how to exercise their rights to union representation and collective bargaining. The revised interpretation provides employees with important information that would enable them to consider the source of the information about union representation directed at them when assessing the merits of the arguments and deciding how to exercise their rights. The Department has also revised the forms and instructions to make them more user-friendly and to require more detailed reporting on employer and consultant agreements. Additionally, with this rule, the Department requires that Forms LM-10 and LM-20 be filed electronically. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Department of Labor announces that the Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements contained in the final rule.
On March 25, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act the Department of Labor's information collection request for requirements in 29 CFR parts 402-406 and 408-409, including the employer and labor relations consultant reporting requirements in Parts 405 and 406, as published in the
Andrew R. Davis, Chief, Division of Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, at (202) 693-0123 (this is not a toll-free number).
This document is available through the printed
Copies of this document may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Congress enacted the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), to provide for the disclosure of information on the financial transactions and administrative practices of labor organizations. The statute also provides, under certain circumstances, for reporting by labor organization officers and employees, employers, labor relations consultants, and surety companies. Section 208 of the LMRDA authorizes the Secretary to issues rules and regulations prescribing the form of the required reports. The reporting provisions were devised to implement basic tenets of the LMRDA: To protect the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively, as well as the guarantee of democratic procedures and safeguards within labor organizations, which are designed to protect the basic rights of union members. Section 205 of the LMRDA provides that the reports are public information.
On March 24, 2016, the Department published a final rule that revised the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report and the Form LM-10 Employer Report. See 81 FR 15924. The final rule was based upon comments received in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) published on June 21, 2011. See 76 FR 37292. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to revise its interpretation of the advice exemption in section 203(c) of the LMRDA to better effectuate section 203's requirement that employers and their labor relations consultants report activities undertaken with an object, directly or indirectly, to persuade employees about how to exercise their rights to union representation and collective bargaining. Under the prior interpretation, reporting was effectively triggered only when a consultant communicated directly with employees. This interpretation left a broad category of persuader activities unreported, thereby denying employees important information that would enable them to consider the source of the information about union representation directed at them when assessing the merits of the arguments and deciding how to exercise their rights. The Department proposed to eliminate this reporting gap. The final rule adopts the proposed rule, with modifications, and provides increased transparency to workers without imposing any restraints on the content, timing, or method by which an employer chooses to make known to its employees its position on matters relating to union representation or collective bargaining. The final rule also maintains the LMRDA's section 203(c) advice exemption and the traditional privileges and disclosure requirements associated with the attorney-client relationship. The Department has also revised the forms and instructions to make them more user-friendly and to require more detailed reporting on employer and consultant agreements. Sections of the Department's regulations have also been amended consistent with the instructions. Additionally, with this rule, the Department requires that Forms LM-10 and LM-20 be filed electronically. This rule largely implements the Department's proposal in the NPRM, with modifications of several aspects of the revised instructions as proposed.
The Department's final rule includes information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Specifically, the final rule requires information collections for employers on the Form LM-10 Employer Report and labor relations consultants on the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report, pursuant to LMRDA section 203, 29 U.S.C. 433. These forms are included, along with the other LMRDA forms, within OMB Control Number 1245-0003. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the Department submitted the information collections contained therein to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 25, 2016 for approval. See 81 FR 16003. On March 25, 2016, OMB approved the Department's information collection request under Control Number 1245-0003, thus giving effect to the information collection requirements contained in the final rule published in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is finalizing an interim rule that requires vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo to carry discharge removal equipment, install spill prevention coamings, and install emergency towing arrangements. The rule also requires these vessels to have prearranged capability to calculate damage stability in the event of a casualty. By reducing the risk of oil spills, improving vessel oil spill response capabilities, and minimizing the impact of oil spills on the environment, this rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.
This final rule is effective May 9, 2016.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0430 and are available using the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You can find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. David Du Pont, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-REG), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1497, or email
This final rule was preceded by several rulemaking documents. On August 30, 1991, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit information to assist the Coast Guard in development of proposed rules that implement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
The legal basis for this rule is OPA 90 section 4202(a)(6), which amended section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) by, among other things, adding a new paragraph (6) to require vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States and carrying oil or a hazardous substance in bulk as cargo to carry appropriate DRE on board.
The purpose of this rule is to finalize the interim rule, which was intended to reduce the risk of oil spills, improve vessel oil spill response capabilities, and minimize the impact of oil spills on the environment.
The Coast Guard received one submission containing two individual comments in response to the NOI. No public meeting was requested and none was held.
One comment supported finalizing the DRE rulemaking, and we agree with that view.
One comment recommended that the Coast Guard require vessel response plans (VRP) and include DRE procedures and training in that requirement. While outside the scope of this rulemaking, we note that Coast Guard regulations already include VRP requirements that incorporate DRE procedures and training. In a separate rulemaking finalized in 1996, the Coast Guard issued VRP requirements for tank vessels (see 61 FR 1081 (January 12, 1996)). The VRP regulations include a requirement to develop procedures for the crew to deploy DRE (see 33 CFR 155.1035(c)(3)) and for the exercise of the entire response plan every 3 years (see 33 CFR 155.1060(a)(5)).
This final rule makes no changes to the interim rule.
The Coast Guard is finalizing the interim rule we issued in 1993. The interim rule amended 33 CFR 155.140, incorporating third party references applicable to all of 33 CFR part 155, and added 33 CFR 155.200, 155.205, 155.210, 155.215, 155.220, 155.225, 155.230, 155.235, 155.240, and 155.245. It also amended 33 CFR 155.310. Sections 155.200 through 155.310 appear in part 155, subpart B, Vessel Equipment. The interim rule's regulations have been in place more than 20 years, and industry has long since been in compliance. Each of the sections added or amended by the interim rule has since been amended at least once by other rulemakings, in part to respond to public comments on the interim rule, but except as discussed below, each retains the general scope it had as a result of the interim rule. This final rule makes no changes to these sections, as subsequently amended.
Section 155.200 provides definitions applicable to subpart B. The section was subsequently amended in 2002 and 2008.
Section 155.205 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges, with an overall length of 400 feet or more, to carry and have available for use equipment and supplies for containing and removing
Section 155.210 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges, with an overall length of less than 400 feet, to carry and have available for use equipment and supplies for containing and removing on-deck oil cargo spills. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
Section 155.215 contains requirements for discharge containment and removal equipment and supplies on inland oil barges. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
Section 155.220 contains requirements for discharge containment and removal equipment and supplies on vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
Section 155.225 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges to be properly equipped for the internal transfer of cargo to tanks or other spaces within the vessel's cargo block. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
Section 155.230 contains emergency towing capability requirements for offshore oil barges. Section 155.230, as subsequently amended in 2000, 2009, 2010, and 2014, now contains a range of control system requirements for all tank barges, including emergency towing capability requirements.
Section 155.235, as subsequently amended in 1997 and 2009, contains emergency towing capability requirements for oil tankers of not less than 20,000 deadweight tons.
Section 155.240 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges to have access to onshore, computerized equipment to calculate a damaged vessel's stability and residual structural strength. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
Section 155.245 contains damage stability and residual strength requirements for inland oil barges. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
The amendment to § 155.310 revised coaming and oil draining requirements to the section's oil discharge containment requirements. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.
The interim rule (as amended) contains material incorporated by reference (IBR). The Director of the Federal Register previously approved all of this IBR material in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.
E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866.
This rule finalizes the 1993 interim rule, and does not change or add new requirements to that rule or the subsequent amendments listed at the end of this document. Owners and operators have been in compliance since 1993 with the requirements this rule will finalize. The comments of the 2012 notice of intent required no change to the final rule. Therefore, the actual net costs of the final rule are zero.
The Coast Guard has developed an updated analysis of the impacts of the DRE requirements compared against the pre-statutory baseline (1993). The intent of the updated analysis is to use the most up-to-date data to present an impact analysis had industry not complied with the 1993 IFR. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket where indicated under
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule finalizes the 1993 interim rule, and does not change or add new requirements. As a rule finalizing a previous interim rule, Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 requirements do not apply. Nonetheless, as the actual net costs of the final rule are zero, the Coast Guard believes that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. This rule involves regulations concerning the equipping of vessels. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
This rule is promulgated under the authority of OPA 90 Title IV, section 4202(a)(6), as codified in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(6). 33 U.S.C. 1321(o) contains a savings clause which states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazardous substance into any waters within such
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f, and have concluded that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction and under section 6.b. of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48243, 48245, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations concerning the equipping of vessels. In addition, it implements a Congressional mandate (section 4202(a) of OPA 90). An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 155 that was published at 58 FR 67988 on December 22, 1993, and amended at:
(a) 59 FR 3749 on January 26, 1994;
(b) 61 FR 33666 on June 28, 1996;
(c) 62 FR 51194 on September 30, 1997;
(d) 63 FR 35531 on June 30, 1998;
(e) 63 FR 71763 on December 30, 1998;
(f) 64 FR 67176 on December 1, 1999;
(g) 65 FR 31811 on May 19, 2000;
(h) 67 FR 58524 on September 17, 2002;
(i) 69 FR 18801 on April 9, 2004;
(j) 73 FR 35015 on June 19, 2008;
(k) 73 FR 79316 on December 29, 2008;
(l) 73 FR 80648 on December 31, 2008;
(m) 74 FR 45026 on August 31, 2009;
(n) 75 FR 36285 on June 25, 2010;
(o) 78 FR 13249 on February 27, 2013;
(p) 78 FR 60122 on September 30, 2013;
(q) 79 FR 38436 on July 17, 2014; and,
(r) 80 FR 5934 on February 4, 2015.
is adopted as a final rule without change.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule; information collection approval and announcement of effective date.
The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection request associated with automatic identification system requirements in a final rule we published in the
Revised paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 164.46, published in the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-3), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1563, email
To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to
On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule that revised or amended existing notice of arrival and automatic identification system requirements. 80 FR 5282. Our final rule delayed the effective date of § 164.46(b) and (c) because these paragraphs contain collection of information provisions that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On March 29, 2016, OMB approved the collection assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0112, Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic Transmission of Vessel Transit Data. Accordingly, we announce that paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 164.46 are effective April 7, 2016. The approval for this collection of information expires on March 31, 2019.
This document is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 46 U.S.C. 70114. With respect to the other collection of information associated with the January 2015 final rule—OMB Control Number 1625-0100, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival, on August 20, 2015—we published a document (80 FR 50576) that announced OMB's approval and the effective date of notice of arrival requirements in §§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) associated with that collection.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Final rule; corrections.
The Department of Education published final regulations for Program Integrity and Improvement in the
Effective July 1, 2016.
Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6097.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In the
(a) In § 668.164(e)(2), we inadvertently limited the permissible use of any personally identifiable information about a student to activities that support making payments of title IV funds, when institutions must make other types of payments to students. Accordingly, on page 67197, in the middle column, we correct § 668.164(e)(2)(ii)(B) of the regulations by replacing the phrase “of title IV, HEA program funds” with the phrase “to the student”.
(b) Under the final regulations, institutions with Tier one arrangements must make public both the full contract and selected contract data. In the regulatory text, we inadvertently omitted reference to the contract data in § 668.164(e)(2)(viii). Accordingly, on page 67197, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.164(e)(2)(viii) of the regulations by adding the words “and contract data as described in paragraph (e)(2)(vii) of this section” after the word “contract”.
(c) In § 668.164(e)(3) of the regulations, we inadvertently limited the information an institution may share to enrollment information relating to title IV recipients, when institutions are permitted to share under the final regulations such information for all students. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the left-hand column, we correct § 668.164(e)(3) by replacing “title IV recipients' ” with “students' ”.
(d) In § 668.164(f)(4)(i)(A) of the regulations we incorrectly omitted a word. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the middle column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(i)(A) by adding “information” after “identifiable”.
(e) In § 668.164(f)(4)(vi) of the regulations, we inadvertently included a redundant phrase. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(vi) by replacing the phrase “If the institution is located in a State, ensure” with the word “Ensure”.
(f) In § 668.164(f)(4)(xii) of the regulations, we inadvertently implied that § 668.164(d)(4)(i) was a voluntary requirement for institutions with a Tier two arrangement that falls below the threshold number of students. Accordingly, on page 67199, in the left-hand column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(xii) by adding the word “applicable” before the word “provisions” and removing the reference to “(d)(4)(i), (f)(4), and (f)(5)” and adding in its place “(f)(4) and (5)”.
(g) In § 668.164(f)(5) of the regulations, we inadvertently limited the information an institution may share to enrollment information relating to title IV recipients, when institutions are
(h) In § 668.165(a)(2), we inadvertently omitted the new definition set out in § 668.161. Accordingly, on page 67200, in the middle column, we correct § 668.165(a)(2) by removing the phrase “student's account at the institution” and replacing it with the phrase “student ledger account”.
(i) In § 668.166(a)(2), we inadvertently omitted the new definition set out in § 668.161. Accordingly, on page 67201, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.166(a)(2) by removing the phrase “Federal account” and replacing it with the phrase “depository account”.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the Secretary's practice to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the regulatory changes in this document are necessary to correct errors and do not establish any new substantive rules. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that publication of a proposed rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
In the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Announcement of early implementation date.
The U.S. Department of Education is establishing the date for early implementation of certain regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
The early implementation date for §§ 668.2(b) and 668.163(a)(1) and (c), published in the
For repeat coursework: Vanessa Freeman, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W236, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 453-7378 or by email at:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On October 30, 2015, we published final rules in the
Section 482(c) of the HEA requires that regulations affecting programs under title IV be published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they apply. However, that section of the HEA also permits the Secretary to designate any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulations may choose to implement earlier, and to specify the conditions for early implementation. The Secretary is exercising the authority under Section 482(c) of the HEA to early implement specific sections of the
Section 668.2(b) specifies that in a term-based program a student may repeat any coursework previously taken in the program but the coursework may not include more than one repetition of a previously passed course. This provision applies to graduate and professional as well as undergraduate students. Section 668.163(a)(1) specifies that educational institutions must maintain title IV, HEA program funds in depository accounts and guidelines that domestic and foreign educational institutions must follow in selecting this account. Finally, § 668.163(c) states that educational institutions in a State must maintain title IV, HEA program funds in an interest-bearing depository account. This section also explains in which instances interest on funds can be retained or must be remitted to the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Secretary is exercising the authority under section 482(c) of the HEA to designate the following amended regulations in 34 CFR part 668 for early implementation beginning on April 7, 2016:
(1) Section 668.2(b) (Retaking Coursework);
(2) Section 668.163(a)(1) (Depository account); and
(3) Section 668.163(c) (Interest-bearing depository account).
20 U.S.C. 1098a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
The document is effective on May 9, 2016.
Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.
• Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8799.
• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.
• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.
• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email:
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613
To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (
EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.
The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site:
The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at
Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site.
The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
This final rule adds the following five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score.
General Superfund section:
The EPA is adding five sites to the NPL in this final rule, all to the general Superfund section. All of the sites were proposed for addition to the NPL on September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58658).
Three of the sites received no comments. They are PCE Former Dry Cleaner in Atlantic, IA; Old American Zinc Plant in Fairmont City, IL; and, Lea and West Second Street in Roswell, NM.
EPA received one comment supporting listing of the Kil-Tone Company in Vineland, NJ. In response,
EPA received HRS-specific comments on the Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co in Norfolk, NE. Those comments have been addressed in a response to comments support document available in the public docket concurrently with the publication of this rule.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
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. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
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 rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.
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. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.
This final rule 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. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. 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 this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.
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 because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is revising its regulations to remove address information for the National Flood Insurance Program's claims appeals process.
This final rule is effective April 7, 2016.
Claudia Murphy, Policyholder Services Division Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3020, 202-646-2775, or (email)
In accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations at title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 62, subpart B, once a flood insurer participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) issues a final claim determination, a policyholder may appeal an action related to the claim taken by the insurer, a FEMA employee, or insurance agent. To pursue an appeal, a policyholder must submit a written appeal to FEMA within 60 days from the date of the decision.
The current regulations at § 62.20(e)(1) indicate that policyholders should submit their appeal to: DHS/FEMA, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Insurance Administrator, 1800 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-MS3010. FEMA is removing this address from the regulations because the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), which handles claims appeals, is relocating from Arlington, Virginia to Washington, DC, and the address in the regulations will no longer be valid. Beginning April 4, 2016, policyholders should submit written appeals to FEMA at the following address: Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20472-3020. FEMA is also introducing the option to submit written appeals via electronic mail at
FEMA will make this information available on its Web site at
FEMA did not publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this regulation. FEMA finds that this rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) notice and comment rulemaking requirements because it is purely procedural in nature. This rule is making a technical change to ensure the accuracy of FEMA's regulations as FIMA relocates from Arlington, Virginia to Washington, DC. FEMA believes this technical amendment is not controversial and will not result in any adverse comments. These changes do not confer any substantive rights, benefits, or obligations; therefore, this rule will have no substantive effect on the public.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), FEMA has determined it has good cause to make this technical amendment effective immediately, so that appellants are aware of the new address as soon as possible and their appeals will be received at the correct address.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), accordingly FEMA has not submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget for review. As this rule involves a non-substantive change, FEMA expects that it will not impose any costs on the public.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that special consideration be given to the effects of proposed regulations on small entities. This rule does not require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3501-3520), FEMA reviewed this final rule and has determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FEMA has analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
FEMA has sent this final rule to the Congress and to the Government Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (Act), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 873 (March 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 804). The rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of that Act and will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. Moreover, it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. FEMA does not expect that it will have “significant adverse effects” on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Claims, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is amending 44 CFR part 62 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
(e) * * *
(1) Submit a written appeal to FEMA within 60 days from the date of the decision.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
Linda M. Pintro, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7490, or email:
This document announces that, on March 21, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the subscriber notification rules contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 21, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 12.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1217.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final specifications.
NMFS specifies an annual catch limit (ACL) of 326,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2015-16 fishing year. As an accountability measure (AM), if the ACL is projected to be reached, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The ACL and AM specifications support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.
The final specifications are effective from May 9, 2016, through August 31, 2016.
Copies of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel. 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Matthew Dunlap, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5177.
Through this action, NMFS is specifying an ACL of 326,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2015-16 fishing year. The Council recommended this ACL, based on the best available scientific, commercial, and other information, taking into account the associated risk of overfishing. This ACL is 20,000 lb lower than the ACL set for the 2014-15 fishing year. The MHI Management Subarea is the portion of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the east of 161°20′ W. longitude. The Deep 7 bottomfish consist of onaga (
The MHI bottomfish fishing year started September 1, 2015, and is currently open. NMFS will monitor the fishery, and if the fishery reaches the ACL before August 31, 2016, NMFS will, as an associated accountability measure authorized in 50 CFR 665.4(f), close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters through August 31. During a fishery closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other (
You may review additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed specifications (81 FR 8884; February 23, 2016); we do not repeat that information here.
The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on March 9, 2016. NMFS received no public comments.
There are no changes in the final specifications from the proposed specifications.
The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed specification stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for certification in the proposed specifications, and does not repeat it here. NMFS did not receive comments regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and one was not prepared.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of data availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is informing the public of its collection of shipment data and creation of spreadsheet models to provide comparisons between actual and benchmark estimate unit sales of five lamp types (
DOE has determined that an accelerated energy conservation standard rulemaking for vibration service lamps must be completed by December 31, 2016.
The spreadsheet is available online at:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) was enacted on December 19, 2007. Among the requirements of subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of title III of EISA 2007 were provisions directing DOE to collect, analyze, and monitor unit sales of five lamp types (
On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) for the
EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (4)(H), which state that if DOE finds that the unit sales for a given lamp type in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (
As in the 2008 analysis and previous comparisons, DOE uses manufacturer shipments as a surrogate for unit sales in this NODA because manufacturer shipment data are tracked and aggregated by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE believes that annual shipments track closely with actual unit sales of these five lamp types, as DOE presumes that retailer inventories remain constant from year to year. DOE believes this is a reasonable assumption because the markets for these five lamp types have existed for many years, thereby enabling manufacturers and retailers to establish appropriate inventory levels that reflect market demand. In addition, increasing unit sales must eventually result in increasing manufacturer shipments. This is the same methodology presented in DOE's 2008 analysis and subsequent annual comparisons, and DOE did not receive any comments challenging this assumption or the general approach.
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “rough service lamp.” A “rough service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for “rough service” applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))
As noted above, rough service incandescent lamps must have a minimum of five filament support wires (not counting the two connecting leads at the beginning and end of the filament), and must be designated and marketed for “rough service” applications. This type of incandescent lamp is typically used in applications where the lamp would be subject to mechanical shock or vibration while it is operating. Standard incandescent lamps have only two support wires (which also serve as conductors), one at each end of the filament coil. When operating (
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “vibration service lamp.” A “vibration service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))
The statute mentions three examples of filament configurations for vibration service lamps in Figure 6-12 of the
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “3-way incandescent lamp.” A “3-way incandescent lamp” includes an incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in combination, to provide 3 light levels; and (ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y))
Three-way lamps are commonly found in wattage combinations such as 50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 100 watts. These lamps use two filaments (
The statute does not provide a definition of “2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps;” however, DOE is interpreting this term to be a general service incandescent
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or shatter-protected lamp.” “Shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, and shatter-protected lamp” mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with NSF/ANSI 51 [National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute] and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with—(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition provides three names commonly used to refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers to them collectively as “shatter-resistant lamps.”
Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a special coating designed to prevent glass shards from being dispersed if a lamp's glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a coating compliant with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,
In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed each of the five sets of shipment data that was collected in consultation with NEMA and applied two curve fits to generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. One curve fit applied a linear regression to the historical data and extended that line into the future. The other curve fit applied an exponential growth function to the shipment data and projected unit sales into the future. For this calculation, linear regression treats the year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences among the data points and the best curve-fit linear line using the least squares function.
For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE found that the linear regression and exponential growth curve fits produced nearly the same estimates of unit sales (
For rough service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 4,967,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 6,731,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 135.5 percent of the estimate,
For vibration service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 2,594,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported 7,071,000 vibration service lamp shipments in 2015, which is 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate.
Section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 in part amends paragraph 325(l)(4) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (D) through (H), which direct DOE to take regulatory action if the actual annual unit sales of any of the five lamp types are more than 200 percent of the predicted shipments (
The requirement to collect and model data for vibration service lamps shall terminate unless, as part of the rulemaking, the Secretary determines that continued tracking is necessary. If, however, the Secretary imposes a
For 3-way incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 48,603,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 32,665,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 67.2 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 34,175,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 4,049,000 units in 2015. As this finding is 11.8 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For shatter-resistant lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 1,675,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 689,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 41.1 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track shatter-resistant lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
The shipments for rough service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps did not cross the statutory threshold for a standard. DOE will continue to monitor these four currently exempted lamp types and will assess 2016 sales by March 31, 2017, in order to determine whether an energy conservation standards rulemaking is required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H). The actual unit sales for vibration service lamps are 272.5 of the benchmark unit sales estimate. Therefore, DOE will begin an accelerated energy conservation standard rulemaking for vibration service lamps that must be completed by December 31, 2016.
DOE has determined that this proposed action falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The FAA announces public meeting on its proposal to revise Part 23 Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes. The purpose of the public meeting is for the FAA to explain and answer questions concerning the language related to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 13452, March 14, 2016).
The public meetings will be held on the following dates: (Note that the meetings may be adjourned early if the agenda is completed in less time than is scheduled for the meetings.)
• May 3, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. until no later than 5:00 p.m.
• May 4, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. until no later than 5:00 p.m.
The NPRM written comment period will close on May 13, 2016.
The May 3 and 4, 2016, public meeting will be held at the Georgia International Convention Center, 2000 Convention Center Concourse, College Park, GA 30294.
Written comments (identified by docket number FAA-2015-1621) may be submitted using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments to the docket will receive the same consideration as statements made at the public meeting. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
Mr. Lowell Foster, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust Street,
On March 14, 2016, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes”. The FAA proposes in this NPRM to amend its airworthiness standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes by removing current prescriptive design requirements and replacing them with performance-based airworthiness standards. The proposed standards would also replace the current weight and propulsion divisions in part 23 with performance- and risk-based divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less. The proposed airworthiness standards are based on, and would maintain, the level of safety of the current part 23. Finally, the FAA proposes to adopt additional airworthiness standards to address certification for flight in icing conditions, enhanced stall characteristics, and minimum control speed to prevent departure from controlled flight for multiengine airplanes. The NPRM addresses the Congressional mandate set forth in the
The purpose of the public meetings is for the FAA to discuss the NPRM, hear the public's questions, address any confusion, and obtain information relevant to the final rule under consideration. The FAA will consider comments made at the public meetings before making a final decision on issuance of the final rule.
A panel of representatives from the FAA will be present. An FAA representative will facilitate the meetings in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) There will be no admission fees or other charges to attend or to participate in the public meetings. The meetings will be open to all persons, subject to availability of space in the meeting room. The FAA will make every effort to accommodate all persons wishing to attend. The FAA asks that participants sign in between 7:00-8:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting being attended. The meetings may adjourn early if the agenda items are completed in less time than is scheduled for the meetings.
(2) The meetings will be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript of the meetings and all material accepted by the panel during the meetings will be included in the public docket, unless protected from disclosure. Each person interested in purchasing a copy of a transcript should contact the court reporter directly. Information on how to purchase a transcript will be available at the meetings.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Notice of intent to establish the Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS) Advisory Committee; Solicitation of applications and nominations for membership.
The Department of Transportation (“Department,” “DOT,” or “we”) announces its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) committee to negotiate and develop proposed amendments to the Department's disability regulation on three issues: Whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications; whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size; and whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight. The committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are affected significantly by the subject matter of the proposed regulation.
The Department anticipates that the interested parties may include disability advocacy organizations, airlines, airports, and aircraft manufacturers. The Department seeks comment on the establishment of the Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS) Advisory Committee, the issues to be addressed, and the proposed list of stakeholder types to be represented on the Committee. We also invite nominations or applications for membership on the ACCESS Advisory Committee. To the extent it can do so consistent with the goal of ensuring effective representation and necessary expertise, the Department will select individuals who reflect the diversity among the organizations or groups represented.
Comments and nominations for Committee membership must be received on or before April 21, 2016.
You may submit comments using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you have questions about the regulatory negotiation, you may contact Livaughn Chapman or Blane A. Workie, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice of intent (DOT-OST-2015-0246), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
You may view comments on this notice of intent, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket at
All nomination materials should be submitted electronically via email to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On December 7, 2015, the Department published a notice in the
In selecting these three issues for the Reg-Neg, the Department considered the impact of the issues on all the affected stakeholders and the likelihood of the Committee reaching agreement on recommendations to the Department. Concerns expressed across interest groups about service animals on aircraft suggested that stakeholders would be motivated to come to agreement on their recommendations. While the differences among stakeholders on IFE accessibility were greater, there were other indications that consensus recommendations may be achievable and that Committee deliberations might furnish highly relevant and useful information and insight to guide Departmental rulemaking deliberations in any event. For example, new technologies and methods for providing IFE have created more accessible onboard entertainment and communications options at lower cost than ever before. Although lavatory accessibility on single aisle aircraft is perhaps the longest standing and the most controversial of the issues considered for the Reg-Neg, we believe that there are significant advantages to including it. The Reg-Neg process will serve to educate all the parties about the state of the art in lavatory accessibility and allow stakeholders to identify regulatory options and share information on their costs and benefits. We believe these stakeholder discussions will enhance the possibility of reaching agreement on proposals to recommend to the Department, and in furnishing useful information to guide the Department's rulemaking if consensus is not reached. For the above reasons, we believe that the scope of the rulemaking should focus on these issues.
The Department acknowledges the views and concerns of all the participants in the convening process and is committed to addressing the issues of supplemental medical oxygen, seating accommodations, and carrier reporting of disability service requests as appropriate in subsequent rulemaking or other actions.
The Secretary of Transportation has approved a charter to govern the activities of the ACCESS Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. In accordance with section 14 of FACA, the charter provides for the ACCESS Advisory Committee to remain in existence for two years after the filing date unless sooner terminated or renewed. However, the Department intends to complete the Reg-Neg for the proposed rule in 2016 and to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2017.
This notice of intent requests nominations for members of the Committee to ensure a wide range of member candidates and a balanced committee. The Secretary of Transportation will appoint approximately 25 Committee members,
The Department will choose the Committee members based on four main criteria: (1) Representativeness (does the applicant represent a significant stakeholder group that will be substantially affected by the final rule); (2) expertise (does the applicant bring essential knowledge, expertise and/or experience regarding accessibility and the topic area(s) of interest that will enrich the discussion of the available options and their respective costs and benefits); (3) balance (does the slate of selected applicants comprise a balanced array of representative and expert stakeholders); and (4) willingness to participate fully (is the applicant able and willing to attend the listed meetings and associated working group conference calls, bring in other experts from the applicant's organization as needed and relevant, bargain in good faith, and generally contribute constructively to a rigorous policy development process).
Subject to change based on information received in response to this notice of intent, DOT proposes for public comment the following list of stakeholder categories to be members of the Committee:
We believe that the aforementioned stakeholder categories represent the interests significantly affected by this rulemaking. Organizations from each stakeholder category may nominate a candidate for Committee membership from their own organization, or jointly nominate a candidate to represent their collective interests. The list is not presented as a complete or exclusive list of stakeholder categories from which Committee members will be selected. The list merely indicates the stakeholder categories that DOT tentatively has identified as representing significantly affected interests in the proposed rule to enhance requirements for accessibility in air transportation. All individuals or organizations who wish to be selected to serve on the Committee should submit an application, regardless of whether their stakeholder category appears on the above list. If anyone believes their interests would not be adequately represented by one or more of these categories, they should document that assertion in their comment and/or their application for membership on the Committee. DOT requests comments and suggestions regarding its tentative list of significantly affected stakeholder categories from which potential members of the Committee may be selected.
Individuals applying for membership should keep in mind that Committee members will be selected to represent not only the interest of that individual's own organization but rather the collective stakeholder interests of organizations in the same stakeholder category. For example, an individual from a large U.S. airline selected to serve on the Committee would represent not only its airline but all large U.S. airlines. As such, the individual would be expected to consult with other large airlines in bringing issues to the table and making decisions on proposals before the Committee.
Working groups may be formed to address the specific ACCESS Advisory Committee issues. These working groups will include Committee members but may also include experts or representatives who are not Committee members. Such working groups will report back to the ACCESS Advisory Committee. The experience of past Reg-Negs has been that working groups play a vital role in the policy development process and deliberations. They provide both Committee Members and non-Members an important opportunity for meaningful participation and interaction in identifying and weighing options and alternatives. The Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings will provide appropriate funding, logistics, administrative, and technical support for the Committee and its working groups. DOT subject matter experts, attorneys, and economists will also provide support to the Committee and work groups. A Web site for Committee members, working group members, and the public to access online general information, meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, as well as Committee and working group work products will be established at
At this time, we anticipate that the ACCESS Advisory Committee will have six two-day meetings in Washington DC. We propose to hold the meetings on the following dates: First meeting, May 17-18; second meeting, June 14-15; third meeting, July 11-12; fourth meeting, August 16-17; fifth meeting, September 22-23, and the sixth and final meeting, October 13-14. Individuals interested in serving on the Committee should plan to attend each of these meetings in person. When appropriate, designees will be permitted.
Qualified individuals can self-nominate or be nominated by any stakeholder or stakeholder organization. To be considered for the ACCESS
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone and email address) and a description of the issues addressed in this rulemaking that such individual is qualified to address, and the interests such a person shall represent;
(2) A letter of support from a company, union, trade association, or non-profit organization on letterhead containing a brief description why the nominee is qualified and should be considered for membership to the extent the nominee proposes to represent parties with interest in this proceeding;
(3) A written commitment that the applicant or nominee shall actively participate in good faith in the development of the rule under consideration;
(4) Short biography of nominee including professional and academic credentials;
(5) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements; and
(6) If applicable, the reason(s) that the parties identified in this notice of intent as affected interests and stakeholders do not adequately represent the interest of the person submitting the application or nomination.
All individuals representing a stakeholder interest who wish to serve on the Reg-Neg Committee should apply for membership by supplying the information listed above. Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information. Materials submitted should total two single-spaced pages or less. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the Internet. Nominations may be emailed to
Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified of appointment by email. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations to the Secretary take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by DOT, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent persons with disabilities, minorities, and women. The Department will file any comments it receives on this notice of intent in docket DOT-OST-2015-0246. Notice to the public will be published in the
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year 2016 and later years. We take this action to provide training and technical assistance to better prepare novice interpreters to become highly qualified nationally certified sign language interpreters.
We must receive your comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
In addition to your general comments and recommended clarifications, we seek input on the proposed design of the Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation Programs (Center) and expectations for implementation. We are particularly interested in your feedback on the following questions:
• Are the proposed required project activities appropriate? Are there any additional project activities beyond those included in the proposed priority that should be considered? For example, are there any specific activities that may be strongly associated with long-term success for ASL-English interpreters that we have not included? If so, please specify what additional activities should be required and why.
• Under the Training Activities section of the proposed priority, we proposed a team of individuals to work with novice interpreters. Are the proposed roles for interpreter advisors and trained mentors clear and appropriate? Should the roles and responsibilities of the interpreter advisor and mentor be changed or combined? In your experience, how might qualified interpreters work with novice interpreters differently than trained mentors? Should these roles be more or less prescriptive than what we have outlined in the proposed priority?
• In the proposed priority, the Center is expected to plan and design the curriculum, develop training modules, and implement a pilot experiential learning program within the first two years of the grant period. Is this timeline reasonable? If not, what timeline should be required for these expected project deliverables?
• In addition to national certification, such as, for example, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) National Interpreter Certification (NIC) tests, what measures for assessing the improvement in a novice interpreter's skills should be required?
• How many cohorts should be required to complete the experiential learning program within the five-year project period? Should the Department require a certain number of novice interpreters per cohort, and, if so, how many?
• Beyond requiring a logic model and a project evaluation, are there any unique or additional strategies to ensure that the program evaluation framework is infused throughout the planning, designing, and implementation of the experiential learning curriculum that the Department should include? If so, please specify.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed priority by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in room 5062, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC 20202-5076, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under
Proposed Priority:
This notice contains one proposed priority.
Over the last 20 years, the fields of interpreting and interpreter training have changed significantly in response to the evolving needs of deaf
Interpreters must be qualified to work with both individuals with a range of linguistic competencies from a variety of cultural backgrounds and individuals with disabilities. For example, the first language of many deaf individuals is either spoken English or a foreign spoken language, and their second language is ASL. This is, in part, a result of advances in medical treatments, such as an increase in the early detection and intervention of hearing loss in newborns and an increase in the use of cochlear implants. In addition, deaf individuals who have co-occurring disabilities (including co-occurring disabilities that affect speech and language skills, upper extremity motor coordination, and cognition) likely require specialized supports to experience linguistic and communication access to the general environment. Further still, there are an increasing number of deaf individuals from minority and immigrant communities who have unique characteristics related to culture, language, family structure, income and socioeconomic background, and refugee experience, as well as complex and diverse communication needs (Cogen and Cokely). These shifts in how deaf individuals acquire and use language make the task of interpreting more difficult.
In addition, expanding requirements in video relay interpreting and video remote interpreting, the establishment of new “national” standards and credentials for interpreters to work in specific settings (
Finally, interpreters need additional education, training, and experience in order to meet certification standards. For example, in July 2012, a precondition was added for candidates sitting for RID National Interpreter Certification Test requiring them to have, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree in any field or major, or a demonstrated educational equivalency, before being permitted to take the examination.
In 2014, RID awarded 280 new credentials, and of those, 186 represented the NIC. RID reported an 87 percent pass rate for the knowledge exam but only a 26 percent pass rate for the performance exam. This problem is exacerbated by the length of time between graduating from an ASL-English Interpretation program and achieving national certification. On average, the length of time is 19-24 months (Cogen and Cokely, 2015). This could be longer if a candidate does not initially pass the NIC exam, due to a mandatory six-month waiting period before a candidate is eligible to retest.
Many graduates find work within six months to one year of graduation, but in most cases, these interpreting assignments are too complex and are therefore inappropriate for their skill
In sum, the pool of qualified interpreters is insufficient to meet the needs of deaf consumers in the United States. To address this problem, the Assistant Secretary proposes a priority to establish a model demonstration center to better prepare novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters.
Interpreters must also be able to understand and communicate proficiently using technical vocabulary and highly specialized discourse in a variety of complex subject matters in both English and ASL. Training, even for experienced interpreters, in specialized settings is needed, and for this reason, we are publishing a notice of proposed priority focusing on interpreter training in specialized areas elsewhere in this issue of the
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a model demonstration center (Center) to: (1) Develop an experiential learning program that could be implemented through baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or through partner organizations, such as community-based organizations, advocacy organizations, or commissions for the Deaf or deaf-blind that work with baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs to provide work experiences and mentoring; (2) pilot the experiential learning program in three baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or partner organizations and evaluate the results; and (3) disseminate practices that are promising or supported by evidence, examples, and lessons learned.
The Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:
(a) Increase the number of certified interpreters.
(b) Reduce the average length of time it takes for novice interpreters to become nationally certified after graduating from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs; and
(c) Increase the average number of hours that novice interpreters, through the experiential learning program, interact with and learn from the local deaf community.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:
(a) The applicant must establish a consortium of training and technical assistance (TA) providers or use an existing network of providers to design and implement a model experiential learning program. An eligible consortium must be comprised of a designated lead entity that operates a baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation program that is recognized and accredited by CCIE; and
(b) Members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, and trained mentors with capability in providing feedback and guidance to novice interpreters, and in serving as language models; and who are geographically dispersed across the country, including the territories, or are able to provide training, TA, and mentoring remotely to broad sections of the country.
(a) In years one and two, design and implement an experiential learning program that is based upon promising and best practices or modules in the preparation of novice interpreters to become certified interpreters. The program design must, at a minimum:
(1) Ensure that all activities are offered at no-cost to participants during the program.
(2) Include a team comprised of native language users, qualified interpreters, and trained mentors to partner with novice interpreters during and after successful completion of the experiential learning program. Roles for team members must include but are not limited to:
(i) Native language users who will serve as language models;
(ii) Qualified interpreters who will act in an advisory role by observing, providing feedback, and discussing the novice interpreter's ability to accurately interpret spoken English into ASL and ASL into spoken English in a variety of situations for a range of consumers; and
(iii) Provide mentoring to novice interpreters, as needed. This may include one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by the advisor as needing further practice, as well as offering tools, resources, and guidance to novice interpreters to prepare them for potential challenges they may encounter as they grow and advance in the profession. One-on-one instruction may address, but is not limited to, meaning transfer (
(3) Provide multiple learning opportunities, such as an internship with a community program, mentoring, and intensive site-specific work. Intensive site-specific work may task a novice interpreter, under close direction from the advisor interpreter, with providing interpreting services to deaf individuals employed at a work site, or to deaf students taking courses at college or enrolled in an apprenticeship program. Other learning modalities may be proposed and must include adequate justification.
(4) Emphasize innovative instructional delivery methods, such as distance learning or block scheduling (
(5) Provide experiential learning that engages novice interpreters with different learning styles;
(6) Provide interpreting experiences with a variety of deaf consumers who have different linguistic and communication needs and preferences, and are located in different settings, including VR settings (
(7) Require novice interpreters to observe, discuss, and reflect on the work of the advisor interpreter;
(8) Require novice interpreters to interpret in increasingly more complex and demanding situations. The advisor interpreter must provide written and
(b) Pilot the experiential learning program in a single site by year two and expand to additional sites beginning in year three. Applicants must:
(1) Identify at least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs to serve as the pilot sites. The baccalaureate programs must use a curriculum design that is based upon current best practices in the ASL-English Interpreter Education profession;
(2) Identify cohorts for each pilot site and provide a plan to ensure that at least one cohort is completed in each pilot site prior to the end of the project period. The cohorts must comprise graduates from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs who are preparing for, or have not passed, the NIC knowledge and performance exams and who intend to work as interpreters. Applicants may determine the number of cohorts for each pilot site as well as the number of participants in each cohort;
(3) Establish additional criteria for selection in the program. This may include, but is not limited to, submission of an application, relevant assessments, interviews with prospective participants, and recommendations from faculty at baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs;
(c) Conduct a formative and summative evaluation. At a minimum, this must include:
(1) An assessment of participant outcomes from each cohort that includes, at a minimum, level of knowledge and practical skill levels using pre- and post-assessments; feedback from novice interpreters, from interpreter advisors, including written feedback from observed interpreting situations, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, including written feedback from mentoring sessions, and from others, as appropriate;
(2) Clear and specific measureable outcomes that include, but are not limited to:
(i) Improvement in specific linguistic competencies, as identified by the applicant, in English and ASL;
(ii) Improvement in specific competencies, as identified by the applicant, in ASL-English interpretation;
(iii) Outcomes in achieving national certification; and
(iv) The length of time for novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters after participating in this project compared to the national average of 19-24 months.
Conduct TA and dissemination activities that must include:
(a) Preparing and broadly disseminating TA materials related to practices that are promising or supported by evidence and successful strategies for working with novice interpreters;
(b) Establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA.
All products produced by the Center must meet government- and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(c) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination system that—
(1) Provides a central location for later use of TA products, including curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of practices that are promising or supported by evidence, and any other relevant TA products; and
(2) Is open and available to the public.
(d) Provides a minimum of two Webinars or video conferences over the course of the project to describe and disseminate information to the field about results, challenges, solutions, and practices that are promising or supported by evidence.
In meeting the requirements for paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Center either may develop new platforms or systems or may modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the requirements of this priority are met.
(a) Establish an advisory committee. To effectively implement the
(b) Establish one or more communities of practice
(c) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable; and
(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.
To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet the following requirements:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for nationally certified sign language interpreters. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:
(1) Demonstrate knowledge of English/ASL competencies that novice interpreters must possess in order to enter and to complete an experiential learning program and, at the end of the program, to successfully obtain national certification;
(2) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in training novice interpreters; and
(3) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in providing experiential learning.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability in accessing postsecondary education and training.
(2) Identify the needs of intended recipients of training; and
(3) Ensure that project activities and products meet the needs of the intended recipients by creating materials in formats and languages that are accessible;
(4) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must identify and provide—
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;
(ii) Evidence of an existing Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the Center and proposed training and TA providers to establish a consortium that includes a description of each proposed partner's anticipated commitment of financial or in-kind resources (if any), how each proposed provider's current and proposed activities align with those of the proposed project, how each proposed provider will be held accountable under the proposed structure, and evidence to demonstrate a working relationship between the applicant and its proposed partners and key stakeholders and other relevant groups; and
(iii) A plan for communicating, collaborating, and coordinating with an advisory committee; key staff in State VR agencies, such as State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs; Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.; RSA partners, such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; and relevant programs within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
(3) Use a conceptual framework to design experiential learning activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables and any empirical support for this framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices that are promising or supported by evidence. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices that are promising or supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products and services.
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed activities to identify or develop the knowledge base for practices that are promising or supported by evidence in experiential learning for novice interpreters;
(6) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(1) Evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project;
(2) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's activities and products have reached their target populations; intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals and objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model,
(3) How the evaluation plan will be implemented and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to support the design and implementation of the evaluation. Tasks may include, but are not limited to, coordinating with the advisory committee and RSA to revise the logic model to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes, to reflect any changes or clarifications to the logic model discussed at the kick-off meeting, and to revise the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent with the logic model (
(4) The standards and targets for determining effectiveness;
(5) How evaluation results will be used to examine the effectiveness of implementation and progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and
(6) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide experiential learning to novice interpreters and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits;
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including the advisory committee, as well as other relevant groups in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the Center and the proposed training and TA providers;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;
(4) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(5) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;
(ii) An annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the RSA project officer and other relevant RSA staff during each subsequent year of the project period; and
(iii) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during the third quarter of the third year of the project period.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
This notice does
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
These proposed priorities contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under the National Interpreter Education program 1820-0018; this proposed regulation does not affect the currently approved data collection.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that would maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory
Through this priority, experiential learning and TA will be provided to novice interpreters in order for them to achieve national certification. These activities will help interpreters to more effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are Deaf-Blind. The training ultimately will improve the quality of VR services and the competitive integrated employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities. This priority would promote the efficient and effective use of Federal funds.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, is making a tentative determination to approve two Site Specific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs) from Imperial County (County or Imperial County) to close and monitor the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill (Picacho Landfill or Landfill). The Picacho Landfill is a commercial municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) operated by Imperial County from 1977 to the present on the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in California.
Imperial County is seeking approval from EPA to use an alternative final cover and to modify the prescribed list of detection-monitoring parameters for ongoing monitoring. The Quechan Indian Tribe (Tribe) reviewed the proposed SSFRs and determined that they met tribal requirements. EPA is now seeking public comment on EPA's tentative determination to approve the SSFRs.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016. If sufficient public interest is expressed by April 22, 2016, EPA will hold a public hearing at the Quechan Community Center, located at 604 Picacho Rd., in Winterhaven, CA on May 9, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If by April 22, 2016 EPA does not receive information indicating sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA may cancel the public hearing with no further notice. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Steve Wall at (415) 972-3381 to verify that a hearing will be held.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0445, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any email, Web site submittal, disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
The
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0445 and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and provide suggestions for substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be verified.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
• Do not submit CBI to EPA through
• Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
• In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
All documents in the administrative record docket for this determination are listed in the
Steve Wall, Land Division, LND 2-3 Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone number: (415) 972-3381; fax number: (415) 947-3564; e-mail address:
Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901
The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are prescriptive, self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. Many of these criteria include a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the prescriptive, self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing, and requires approval by the Director of an EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting program. However, EPA's approval of a state program generally does not extend to Indian Country because states generally do not have authority over Indian Country. For this reason, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian Country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those facilities that are within the jurisdiction of an EPA-approved state program. However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules to enable such owners and operators to use the flexible standards. See
The Picacho Landfill is located on Quechan tribal lands on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation approximately four miles north-northeast of the community of Winterhaven, in Imperial County, California. The Picacho Landfill is a commercial MSWLF operated by Imperial County from 1977 to the present. The landfill site is approximately 12.5 acres.
In January 2006, the Tribe requested that EPA provide comments on the County's closure plan. Between 2006 and 2011, EPA worked with the Tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the County to develop and reach agreement on the closure plan and SSFRs. During this time, EPA also reviewed the SSFRs to determine whether they met technical and regulatory requirements. On October 27, 2010, Imperial County submitted its Picacho Final Closure/Post‐Closure Maintenance Plan. EPA provided a final round of comments on February 10, 2011, which Imperial County incorporated as an addendum. On April 30, 2012, the Tribe approved the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan as amended, and, pursuant to EPA's Draft Guidance, the Tribe forwarded to EPA two SSFRs that had been submitted by Imperial County to close and monitor the Picacho Landfill. The requests seek EPA approval to use an alternative final cover meeting the performance requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and to modify the prescribed list of detection-monitoring parameters provided in 40 CFR 258.54(a)(1) and (2) for ongoing monitoring.
EPA is basing its tentative determination to approve the site-specific flexibility request on the Tribe's approval, dated April 30, 2012, EPA's independent review of the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan as amended, and the associated SSFRs.
The regulations require the installation of a final cover system specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which consists of an infiltration layer with a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1 × 10
EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors, including: (1) Research showing that prescriptive, self-implementing requirements for final covers, comprised of low permeability compacted clay, do not perform well in the arid west. The clay dries out and cracks, which allows increased infiltration along the cracks; (2) Research showing that in arid environments thick soil covers comprised of native soil can perform as well or better than the prescriptive cover; and (3) Imperial County's analysis demonstrates, based on site-specific climatic conditions and soil properties, that the proposed alternative soil final cover will achieve equivalent reduction in infiltration as the prescriptive cover design and that the proposed erosion layer provides equivalent protection from wind and water erosion. This analysis is provided in Appendix D and Appendix D-1 of the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan dated October 27, 2010 and amended on February 20, 2011.
The regulations require post-closure monitoring of 15 heavy metals, listed in 40 CFR part 258, Appendix I. Imperial County, proposes to replace these, with the exception of arsenic, with the alternative inorganic indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
EPA's tentative determination is based on the fact that the County has performed over 15 years of semi-annual groundwater monitoring at the site, and during that time arsenic was the only heavy metal detected at a value that slightly exceeded the federal maximum contaminant level (MCL), a standard used for drinking water.
In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101
Though no known threatened or endangered species or their habitat exist on the site, in order to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of the potential risks posed by SRPMIC's proposal and the controls and standards set forth in the application.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
As required by section three of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”
EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this tentative determination from tribal officials of the Quechan Indian Tribe.
Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Final cover, Post-closure care groundwater Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is proposed to be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
(b)
(1) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.54(a), the owner and operator may modify the list of heavy metal detection monitoring parameters specified in 40 CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during Post-Closure Care by 40 CFR 258.61(a)(3), by replacing monitoring of the inorganic constituents with the exception of arsenic, with the inorganic indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
(2) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.60(b), the owner and operator may replace the prescriptive final cover set forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a), with an alternative final cover as follows:
(i) The owner and operator may install an evapotranspiration cover system as an alternative final cover for the 12.5 acre site.
(ii) The alternative final cover system shall be constructed to achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in § 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in § 258.60(a)(3).
(iii) The final cover system shall consist of a minimum three-feet-thick multi-layer cover system comprised, from bottom to top, of:
(A) A minimum 30-inch thick infiltration layer consisting of:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rulemaking proposes to add eight sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. This proposed rule also withdraws a previous proposal to add a site to the NPL.
Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016.
Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, at
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email:
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613
To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
(2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (
The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and
Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.
The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
The EPA also has developed an NPL Construction Completion List (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site:
The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at
Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.
The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.
• Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.
• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.
• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
You may use the docket at
The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.
The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the
The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (
Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at
In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.
In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the table below.
The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base site in Lockbourne, Ohio to the NPL because all appropriate cleanup actions have been taken at the site in accordance with its reuse as an airport. The U.S. Air Force will continue to provide funding to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency under its Defense-State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) to provide cleanup oversight and stewardship of institutional controls in accordance with state law. The proposed rule can be found at 59 FR 2568 (January 18, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0002 for supporting documentation regarding this action.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
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. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
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 rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.
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. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.
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. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. 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 this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.
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 because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On February 9, 2015, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies collect and report additional data elements related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) in the AFCARS. ACF will consider the public comments on this SNPRM as well as comments already received on the February 9, 2015 NPRM and issue one final AFCARS rule.
Submit written or electronic comments on this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before May 9, 2016.
We encourage the public to submit comments electronically to ensure they are received in a timely manner. Please be sure to include identifying information on any correspondence. To download an electronic version of the proposed rule, please go to
•
• Please be aware that mail sent in response to this SNPRM may take an additional 3 to 4 days to process due to security screening of mail.
•
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this preamble. A copy of these comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed above.
Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Director, Policy Division. To contact Kathleen McHugh, please use the following email address:
Section 479 of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires that ACF regulate a national data collection system that provides comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children who are in foster care or adopted with title IV-E agency involvement (42 U.S.C. 679). Historically, the broad underlying legislative directive has always been the establishment and administration of a system for “the collection of data with respect to adoption and foster care in the United States.” Such data collection system is the Adoption and Foster Care Automated Reporting System (AFCARS).
The AFCARS statute with regard to data collection systems requires the following: (1) The data collection system developed and implemented shall avoid unnecessary diversion of resources from adoption and foster care agencies; (2) the data collection system shall assure that any data that is collected is reliable and consistent over time and among jurisdictions through the use of uniform definitions and methodologies; (3) the data collection system shall provide: Comprehensive national information with respect to the demographic characteristics of adoptive and foster children and their biological and adoptive foster parents; the status of the foster care population, the number and characteristics of children place in and removed from foster care; children adopted or for whom adoptions have been terminated; children placed in foster care outside the state which has placement and care responsibility; the extent and nature of assistance provided by federal, state, and local adoption and foster care programs; the characteristics of the children with respect to whom such assistance is provided; and the annual number of children in foster care who are identified as sex trafficking victims including those who were victims before entering foster care; and those who were victims while in foster care; and (4) the data collection system will utilize appropriate requirements and incentives to ensure that the system
ACF issued the AFCARS NPRM (80 FR 7132, hereafter referred to as the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM) to amend the AFCARS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.40 and the appendices to part 1355. In it, ACF proposed to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. At the time the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM was issued, ACF concluded that it did not have enforcement authority regarding ICWA and, therefore, was not able to make the requested changes or additions to the AFCARS data elements regarding ICWA.
However, in the time since publication of the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, ACF legal counsel re-examined the issue and determined it is within ACF's existing authority to collect state-level ICWA-related data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children in child welfare systems pursuant to section 479 of the Social Security Act. Such determination was informed by comments received on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM as well as an extensive re-evaluation of the scope of ACF's statutory and regulatory authority.
In 1970, President Nixon declared that termination, the then-current federal policy to terminate Indian tribal governments, sell tribal land, and move AI/AN peoples from ancestral lands to assimilate them into `American' society, was wrong and should be replaced by Indian
Against this backdrop, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to address concerns over the consequences to Indian children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes.
However, ACF has never collected ICWA-related data. Using the data elements proposed in the SNPRM, ACF proposes to collect ICWA-related data on AI/AN children in child welfare systems for several uses in the public interest including: To assess the current state of foster care and adoption of Indian children under the Act, to develop future national policies concerning ACF programs that affect Indian children under the Act, and to meet federal trust obligations under established federal policies.
ICWA was enacted by Congress in response to alarming numbers of AI/AN children being removed from their families by public and private child welfare agencies, most often being placed in non-Indian homes far from their tribal communities. Congress found that, “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.” (25 U.S.C. 1901 (3)) Accordingly, through ICWA, Congress declared the policy of the United States is to protect the best interests of Indian children, to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families, and to place such children in foster or adoptive homes that reflect the unique values of Indian cultures. Finally, Congress calls for providing assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service programs. (25 U.S.C. 1902) ICWA was enacted to protect American Indian families and to give tribes a role in making child welfare decisions for AI/AN children. AI/AN children are subject to ICWA when they are unmarried persons under the age of 18 and are either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and are the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. ICWA expressly requires, among other things, that: (1) A tribe is notified when the state places an “Indian child” in foster care or seeks to terminate parental rights on behalf of such a child, (2) a tribe is given an opportunity to intervene in any state proceeding for foster care placement and termination of parental rights to a child subject to ICWA, and (3) that a preference be given to placing the Indian child with extended family or tribal families.
AFCARS is designed to collect uniform, reliable information from title IV-B and title IV-E agencies on children who are under the agencies' responsibility for placement, care, or supervision. AFCARS was established to provide data that would assist in policy development and program management. Although ICWA was passed more than 30 years ago, it is unclear how well state agencies and courts have implemented ICWA's requirements into practice. Even in states with large AI/AN populations, there may be confusion regarding how and when to apply the law, including providing notice to tribes and making active efforts to prevent removal and reunite children with their Indian families as required under ICWA. This is further complicated by the fact that there is no comprehensive national data on the status of AI/AN children for whom ICWA applies at any stage in the adoption or foster care system. AFCARS data can bridge this gap.
Additional AFCARS data elements are proposed to enhance the type and quality of information title IV-E agencies report to ACF. ACF's proposals, embodied in this SNPRM, are motivated by the Administration's vision of healthy, resilient, and thriving Indian children and families as well as the continued vitality and integrity of Indian tribes. More specifically, the proposals reflected in this SNPRM manifest Department-wide priorities to affirmatively protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes, families, and children.
ACF proposes to collect data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA's statutory standards for removal, foster care placement, and adoption proceedings. More specifically, through this SNPRM, ACF will improve the AFCARS data collection system to provide more comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children, including children subject to ICWA, who are in foster care or adopted with title IV-E agency involvement. Additionally, ACF intends to use the data to:
1. Address the unique needs of AI/AN children in foster care or adoption, and their families.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report titled “Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States”
2. Assess the current state of adoption and foster care programs and relevant trends that affect AI/AN families.
American Indian and Alaska Native children are over-represented in child welfare systems at higher rates than any other racial or ethnic group. In 2013, American Indian children were over-represented among children in foster care by a factor of 2.4, compared to their proportion of the population. From 2000 to 2013, the degree of over-representation of AI/AN children substantially increased from 1.5 to 2.4, and the degree of disproportionality varies widely by state (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2015). At this time, there is very limited data available to help understand the reasons for the varying degrees of disproportionality. Proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data elements will shed light on the relationship between implementing ICWA requirements and outcomes for AI/AN children. In addition, the proposed data elements will provide additional information to help identify the real or perceived barriers encountered by states in identifying AI/AN children in their child welfare systems. Finally, proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data elements will provide currently unavailable information that will help to assess the extent to which the fidelity of ICWA implementation influences permanent placements for Indian children and the length of stay in out-of-home care. The proposed ICWA data will also help to inform efforts to compare program practices, processes, or outcomes between states and over the course of time, which would allow the Children's Bureau to identify trends and highlight and build upon strengths and best practices.
3. Improve training and technical assistance to help states comply with title IV-E, and title IV-B of the Social Security Act.
Through the Children's Bureau, ACF provides state title IV-E agencies with technical assistance to help agencies implement federal requirements and improve their child welfare programs (as authorized by section 435 and 476 of the Social Security Act). Between federal fiscal year (FFY) 2010 and FFY 2014, ACF received 31 requests for tailored consultation from state agencies and title IV-B tribes (separately or in collaboration) for assistance with examining or supporting ICWA implementation. In response to these requests, ACF-supported technical assistance providers delivered more than 3,700 hours of direct, tailored consultation to state agencies and tribes related to ICWA.
In FFY 2015, 24 state title IV-E agencies participated in discussions with ACF and its technical assistance providers about their potential areas of need for capacity building and improvement. One third of these agencies identified themselves as having ICWA implementation related needs for technical assistance. Data related to ICWA will assist ACF to improve training content, target subject areas, and identify geographies in which training will be helpful.
4. Develop future national policies concerning its programs.
Additional proposed ICWA-related data will allow ACF and the Children's Bureau to more effectively plan, coordinate, and lead AI/AN programming across ACF operations, with other Departments such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and throughout the federal government. By collecting additional data, the federal government will also have a more complete understanding of how state agencies interact with Indian children and families as well as how many children subject to ICWA come to the attention of state child welfare agencies nationwide. This additional data will help align performance measures, build an evidence base that informs policy and practice, and better ensure that federal funds are being directed in a way that delivers significantly better results for AI/AN families. This critical role aligns with the research, evaluation, and technical assistance responsibilities of the Children's Bureau.
5. Inform and expand partnerships across federal agencies that invest in Indian families and that promote resilient, thriving tribal communities through several initiatives.
AFCARS data on the wellbeing of AI/AN children will help multiple federal agencies identify needs and gaps, expand best practices, and shape new policy and technical assistance. Several of the current interagency initiatives that will benefit include:
•
•
•
• Interagency ICWA Working Group Projects, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs initiative to update state guidance on ICWA and promulgate ICWA regulations. The BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs updated the Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings (80 FR 10146, issued February 25, 2015, hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) and has issued proposed regulations for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings (proposed at 80 FR 14880, issued March 20, 2015) to help ensure Indian children are not removed from their communities, cultures, and extended families in conflict with ICWA's express mandates.
Consistent with the Administration's focus on Indian children, the Department of the Interior, DOJ, and HHS engaged in extensive interagency collaboration to promote compliance with ICWA and agreed to continue to collaborate. This work involved collaborating on ICWA-related regulations, including the BIA regulations and this SNPRM.
6. Implement Tribal sovereignty principles and Federal trust responsibilities.
Improving AFCARS to inform ACF and other federal agencies is consistent with ACF's implementation of government-to-government principles of engagement with AI/AN tribes and respect for our trust responsibilities. ACF's understanding of fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty is reflected in both the Department's and ACF's Tribal Consultation Policies which state:
“The special government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, established in 1787, is based on the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders, and reaffirms the right of Indian Tribes to self-government and self-determination. Indian Tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their citizens and territory. The U.S. shall continue to work with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Tribal self-government, Tribal trust resources, Tribal treaties and other rights.”
“Tribal self-government has been demonstrated to improve and perpetuate the government-to-government relationship and strengthen Tribal control over Federal funding that it receives, and its internal program management. Indian Tribes participation in the development of public health and human services policy ensures locally relevant and culturally appropriate approaches to public issues.” (Section 3, Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Consultation Policy).
“Our Nation, under the law of the U.S. and in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government and self-determination. Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The U.S. continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, tribal treaties, and other rights.” (Section 4, ACF Tribal Consultation Policy).
These principles are also reflected in ICWA through Congressional recognition of “the special relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes and their members and the Federal responsibility to Indian people.” (25 U.S.C. 1901)
ACF announced its intent to publish a SNPRM in a
Sections 479 and 474(f) of the Act provide HHS the authority to require that title IV-E agencies maintain a data collection system which provides comprehensive national information related to adopted and foster children and requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services regulate a national data collection system to provide comprehensive case level information and impose penalties for failure to submit AFCARS data under certain circumstances. Section 1102 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations necessary for the effective administration of the functions for which she is responsible under the Act.
ACF invites the public to comment on all aspects of the ICWA-related data elements proposed in this SNPRM. In addition, ACF specifically invites comment on which, if any, of the proposed data elements the state title IV-E agencies currently collect. ACF will review and consider all comments that are germane and received during the comment period on this SNPRM as well as those previously submitted in response to the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, and issue one final rule on AFCARS.
To inform the development of the ICWA-related data elements proposed in this SNPRM, ACF reviewed public comments received in response to the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, held tribal and state consultation and listening sessions, and consulted with federal agency experts, as outlined below.
1. Consideration of comments on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM that addresses ICWA-related data elements.
ACF received approximately 45 comments that proposed/recommended including new data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA. Twenty-five of the commenters were tribes or tribal organizations, four were state child welfare departments, and the remaining were public interest organizations, academics/universities, and individuals. Of the 45 comments, 18 commenters submitted the same or similar form letter that recommended additional data elements providing information about the applicability of ICWA for children in out-of-home care and proposed revisions to the data elements proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM to
2. Tribal consultation session.
The Children's Bureau held a tribal consultation via conference call on May 1, 2015, that was co-facilitated by the Children's Bureau's (CB) Associate Commissioner and the Chairperson of the ACF Tribal Advisory Committee, who also serves as the Vice Chair of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council. The CB conducted the session to obtain input from tribal leaders on proposed AFCARS data elements related to ICWA. Comments were solicited during the call to determine essential data elements that title IV-E agencies should report to AFCARS including, but not limited to: Whether the requirements of ICWA were applied to a child; notice for child welfare proceedings; active efforts to prevent removal or to reunify the Indian child with the child's biological or adoptive parents or Indian custodian; placement preferences under ICWA; and terminations of parental rights for an Indian child. Tribal representatives did not provide specific suggestions on the call but noted during the call that they would provide formal comments on the SNPRM when it was issued.
3. Solicited input from members of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA).
The NAPCWA, an affiliate of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) hosted a conference call with state members of NAPCWA (
4. Input from federal agency experts regarding ICWA.
In December 2014, at the White House Tribal Nations conference, Attorney General Holder announced an initiative to promote compliance with ICWA. This initiative included partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Interior to ensure all tools available to the federal government are used to promote compliance with ICWA. Federal Departments have a strong interest in collecting data elements related to ICWA. To further interagency collaboration in this area, DOI, DOJ, and HHS have engaged in extensive discussions focused on ICWA, including the sharing of agencies' expertise for the development of ICWA-related regulations, including AFCARS.
As part of on-going intra- and inter-agency collaboration, ACF consulted with federal experts on what data exists, or not, and its utility in understanding the well-being of Indian children, youth, and families. ACF also consulted with federal partners on the ICWA statutory requirements in 25 U.S.C. 1901
After considering all of the aforementioned input, ACF proposes the addition of paragraph (i) to § 1355.43 (as proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM). Section 479 of the Act permits broader data collection in order to establish a true national data collection system that provides comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children who are in foster care and adopted with title IV-E agency involvement, to assess the current state of adoption and foster care programs in general, as well as to develop future national policies concerning these programs. Collecting data on Indian children, including ICWA-related data, is within the authority of section 479 because it is in line with the statutory goal of assessing the status of children in foster care. ACF is exercising its authority to propose a limited new set of ICWA-related data because section 479(a) authorizes “the collection of data with respect to adoption and foster care in the United States” and Indian children are children living within the United States and are those intended to benefit from
ACF will analyze all pertinent comments to this SNPRM along with prior comments received on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM and issue one final rule on AFCARS in which the ICWA-related data elements will be included. ACF understands from consultation and the regulatory development process that some of the information sought in this SNPRM for inclusion in AFCARS might be contained in agency case files. However, a number of the proposed data elements seek information related to court findings and this represents a shift toward increased reporting on the activity of the court in AFCARS. In this SNPRM, ACF proposes that state title IV-E agencies report information believed to be contained in court orders that the state title IV-E agency would have ready access to or would typically be contained within the state title IV-E agency case files. ACF is seeking input from state title IV-E agencies on
In paragraph (i), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies collect and report certain ICWA-related information on children in the AFCARS out-of-home care reporting population. ACF does not require state title IV-E agencies to report the data elements proposed in paragraph (i) for an Indian child who remains under the tribe's responsibility, placement, and care but for which the state provides IV-E foster care maintenance payments pursuant to a state-tribal agreement as described in section 472(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. This is because the state's agreement with the tribe is to provide title IV-E foster care maintenance payments to a child under the tribe's placement and care responsibility. Additionally, tribal title IV-E agencies are not required to collect and report the data elements proposed in paragraph (i). The data elements in § 1355.43(i) are subject to the same compliance and penalty requirements in §§ 1355.45 and 1355.46, respectively, proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM (80 FR 7187-7192 and 7220-7221).
In paragraph (i)(1), ACF proposes to require that unless otherwise specified, the following terms have the same meaning as in ICWA, at 25 U.S.C. 1903: Child custody proceeding, extended family member, Indian, Indian child, Indian child's tribe, Indian custodian, Indian organization, Indian tribe, parent, reservation, and tribal court. It is important to note that the term “Indian child” in this section does not refer to a racial classification, but rather is defined by ICWA as a child who is either a member of an Indian tribe, or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. Each term is listed in the regulatory language below with the corresponding ICWA statutory citation.
In paragraph (i)(2), ACF proposes to require that for all children in the out-of-home care reporting population per § 1355.41(a), the state title IV-E agency must complete the data elements in paragraphs (i)(3) through (5).
In paragraph (i)(3), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether the state title IV-E agency inquired about pertinent information on a child's status as an “Indian child” under ICWA. This includes: Reporting whether the child is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe; the child's biological or adoptive parents are members of an Indian tribe; inquiring about the child's status as an “Indian child” with the child, his/her biological or adoptive parents (if not deceased), and the child's Indian custodian (if the child has one); ascertaining whether the domicile or residence of the child, parent, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation.
This data will provide information on whether state title IV-E agencies and state courts are evaluating whether the child meets the definition of “Indian child” under ICWA. These are threshold questions indicating whether the state title IV-E agency knows or has “reason to know” that a child is an Indian child and thus is subject to the protections under ICWA. Without inquiry, many Indian children are not identified, thereby denying children, parents, and Indian tribes procedural and substantive protections under ICWA. These data elements represent the minimum that a state title IV-E agency should be collecting to determine whether the child is an Indian child under ICWA. Such elements will help establish demographics necessary in identifying ICWA cases that involve parents who are tribal members or that involve an Indian custodian. Proactively identifying Indian children will improve the AFCARS data on AI/AN child foster care cases, adoption through the title IV-E agencies, as well as provide a base for understanding the percentage of AI/AN cases to which ICWA applies. More accurate data will help ACF better understand the scope of ICWA's impact in AI/AN child foster care cases and state systems, help identify where the application of ICWA may need reinforcement, and help inform ACF technical assistance to state title IV-E agencies.
In paragraph (i)(4), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency indicate whether it knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child under ICWA. If so, the state title IV-E agency must indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency discovered information that indicates that the child is or may be an Indian child and identify all federally recognized Indian tribes identified that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe(s).
In paragraph (i)(5), ACF proposes that the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether a court order indicates that a court found that ICWA applies, the date of the finding, and the name of the Indian tribe if listed on the court order.
If the state title IV-E agency responds with “yes” to the data elements in paragraphs (i)(4) or (5), then the agency must complete the remaining applicable paragraphs (i)(6) through (29) of this section, which includes information on: Transfers to tribal court; notification of child custody proceedings; active efforts to prevent removal and to reunify with the Indian family; foster care and adoptive placement preferences; and termination of parental rights.
Because not all AI/AN children meet the definition of “Indian child” under ICWA, these data elements are critical to identify the national number of AI/AN child foster care cases to which ICWA applies. Data elements related to whether ICWA applies are essential because application of ICWA triggers procedural and substantive protections. The date the agency received information as to whether the child is an Indian child under ICWA is essential to understanding the time-lapse between knowing that a child is an Indian child and tribal notification. A long time-lapse can indicate a delay in the application of the ICWA protections. Additionally, identifying Indian tribes that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe will help tribes, states, and the federal government direct resources into developing relationships that will streamline the process of identifying Indian children.
In paragraphs (i)(6) and (7), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information on whether a case was transferred from state court to tribal court, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b). In paragraphs (i)(6), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether a court order indicates that the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, or Indian child's tribe requested, orally on the record or in writing, that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), at any point during the report period. In paragraph
The data in this section will provide an understanding of how many children in foster care with ICWA protections are or are not transferred to the Indian child's tribe and an understanding of the reasons why a state court did not transfer the case. Additionally, ACYF-CB-PI-14-03 (issued March 5, 2014) requires, among other things, that states develop, in consultation with tribes, measures to determine whether tribes are able to effectively intervene and, where appropriate, transfer proceedings to tribal jurisdiction. One focus of the Child and Family Services Reviews conducted by the Children's Bureau is the importance of preserving a child's cultural connections. This data will aid in understanding how a state may preserve a child's connection to his/her tribe. In addition, transfer data will aid in identifying capacity needs and issues in tribal child welfare systems that may prevent tribes from taking jurisdiction. Transfer data will help identify opportunities to build relationships between states and tribes. The data will also indicate whether additional tribal court resources are needed to improve transfer rates, or additional training for state courts is required regarding appropriate “good cause” exceptions to transfer.
In paragraphs (i)(8) through (10), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information about legal notice to the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, and Indian child's tribe regarding the child custody proceeding as defined in ICWA. ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report: Whether the Indian child's biological or adoptive parent or Indian custodian were given proper legal notice of the child custody proceeding more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a); whether the Indian child's tribe (if known) was given proper legal notice of the child custody proceedings more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding; which Indian tribe(s) were sent notice of the child custody proceeding; and whether the state title IV-E agency replied with additional information that the Indian child's tribe(s) requested, if such a request was made.
State child welfare agencies may have this information in their case files, regardless whether the notice was sent by the agency or the court. Notice to the Indian child's parents, Indian custodian, and tribe about child custody proceedings, as defined in ICWA, and the timing of the notice is an essential procedural protection provided by ICWA. ICWA requires that the party seeking foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe of the pending proceedings, including notice of their right of intervention and that no foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after notice is received (25 U.S.C. 1912(a)). Notifying individuals and tribes of their rights and requirements in every child custody proceeding is critical to meaningful access to and participation in adjudications. Further, improper notice is a common basis for an appeal under ICWA, resulting in failure of process and unnecessary costs and delay. The data reported in this section will provide an understanding of how legal notice and adherence to the timeframes in ICWA may impact an Indian child's case. The data will also help identify technology, capacity, and training needs for meeting legal notice requirements, as well as opportunities for technical assistance and relationship-building between states and tribes.
In paragraphs (i)(11) through (13), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether and when the state title IV-E agency began to make active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family prior to the child's most recent out-of-home care episode, whether the court found in a court order that the state title IV-E agency made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts were unsuccessful, and what active efforts the state title IV-E agency made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family (see 25 U.S.C. 1912(d)).
Providing active efforts to prevent the breakup of Indian families is a key component of the ICWA protections (25 U.S.C. 1912(d)). Under ICWA, any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must demonstrate to the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to avoid the need to remove the Indian child, or terminate parental rights. Thus, state title IV-E agencies are required to identify and offer programs and services to prevent the breakup of Indian families which includes services to maintain and reunite an Indian child with his or her family and to promote the stability and security of the Indian family. Where such efforts are meaningful and effective, exits from child welfare systems increase and a reduction in disproportionality in state child welfare systems logically follows.
Proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data regarding active efforts will provide a better understanding of the status of Indian children in foster care, how these efforts may impact an Indian child's case, and the role of the courts in making findings. The data will also help identify service needs and efficacy; capacity needs; the need for training and technical assistance; and opportunities to build relationships between states and tribes.
In paragraph (i)(14), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether the state court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e); and whether the court finding indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e).
This is an important protection under ICWA for Indian children given that the standard for removal of an Indian child is established by ICWA and may be different than in non-ICWA foster care cases. In ICWA, Congress created minimum federal standards for removal to prevent the continued breakup of Indian families. ICWA's legislative history reflects clear Congressional intent: “It is clear then that the Indian child welfare crisis is of massive proportions and that Indian families face vastly greater risks of involuntary separation than are typical of our society as a whole.” (H. Rep. 95-1386 (July 24, 1978)). The proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data element will provide data on the extent to which
In paragraphs (i)(15) through (18), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies report certain information on the foster care and pre-adoptive placement of Indian children, specifically, the placement of such children in the least restrictive setting that most approximates a family within reasonable proximity to his or her home in accordance with preferences established in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(b), or preferences established by tribal resolution 25. U.S.C. 1915(c).
In paragraph (i)(15), the state title IV-E agency must indicate which foster care and pre-adoptive placements from a list of five are available to accept placement of the Indian child. The five placements options are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs; and a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).
In paragraph (i)(16), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the Indian child's current placement as of the end of the report period meets the placement preferences of ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed from a list of six response options. The placements are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs; a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); or none.
In paragraph (i)(17), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the state court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe, if the placement preferences for foster care and pre-adoptive placements were not followed. In paragraph (i)(18), the state title IV-E agency must indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated on the court order, from a list of five response options: Request of the biological parents; request of the Indian child; the unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915; the extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child; or other.
The requirements around placement preferences in ICWA are a key piece of the protections mandated by ICWA. Placement preferences serve to protect the best interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by keeping Indian children with their extended families or in Indian foster homes and communities. The placement preferences in ICWA are congruent with the title IV-E plan requirement in section 471(a)(19) of the Act regarding preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining the placement for a child. Data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being indicates that opportunities for kinship placements vary widely by age for AI/AN children when compared to other children of the same age. New AFCARS data will help to adequately assess the current status of kinship placements as well as to help identify a national plan for meeting permanency goals through kinship placements.
Factors unique to Indian children, including the availability of American Indian foster homes, influence decisions about the placement of Indian children. These factors include the characteristics of the foster home, the number of placements a child will have, and the duration of the stay (GAO-05-290, p.3). The information from these data elements will allow ACF to distinguish between ICWA cases in which there was no available ICWA-preferred placement and those cases where an available ICWA-preferred placement was not used despite its availability. The data will help to identify trends or problems that may require enhanced recruitment of potential Indian foster homes or relative placements. This information will help to identify the training and technical assistance needs of states to support recruitment and support foster families to meet the unique cultural, social, extracurricular, and linguistic needs of Indian children. Reporting information on good cause will help agencies better understand why the ICWA placement preferences are not followed. In addition, such information will aid in targeting training and resources needed to assist states in improving Indian child outcomes.
In paragraphs (i)(19) through (24), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report information regarding voluntary and involuntary terminations of parental rights (TPR), which include tribal customary adoptions. The information includes: Whether the rights of the Indian child's parents or Indian custodian were involuntarily or voluntarily terminated; whether, prior to ordering an involuntary termination of parental rights, the state court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f); whether the state court indicates that its finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f); and if the TPR was voluntary, whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive mother and biological or adoptive father or Indian custodian was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction and accompanied by the presiding judge's certificate that the terms and consequences of the consent were fully explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913.
Distinguishing between involuntary and voluntary terminations of parental rights is important in ICWA given specific protections that must be provided in each context (25 U.S.C. 1912(e), (f) and 25 U.S.C. 1913). In addition, termination standards are important protections for Indian children under ICWA given that Congress specifically created minimum federal standards for removal of an Indian child to prevent the breakup of Indian families and to promote the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by preserving the child's
In paragraphs (i)(25) through (29), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information on adoptive placement preferences, which are requirements in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a), if the Indian child exited foster care to adoption per § 1355.43(g).
In paragraph (i)(25), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the child exited foster care to adoption per § 1355.43(g). This is a driver question for this section; if the state title IV-E agency indicates “yes,” then the agency must complete the elements in this section; if the state title IV-E agency indicates “no,” then the agency must skip the elements in this section.
In paragraph (i)(26), the state title IV-E agency must indicate which adoptive placements from a list of four were willing to accept placement of the Indian child. Adoption placements preferences are found in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) as follows: A member of the Indian child's extended family; other members of the Indian child's tribe; other Indian families; or a placement that complies with the order of preference for adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).
In paragraph (i)(27), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the placement reported in § 1355.43(h) meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed from a list of five response options. The placements preferences are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; other members of the Indian child's tribe; other Indian families; or a placement that complies with the order of preference for adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); or none.
In paragraph (i)(28), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the state court made a finding of good cause, in a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe, if the placement preferences for adoptive placements were not followed. In paragraph (i)(29), the state title IV-E agency must indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated in the court order, from a list of five response options: Request of the biological parents; request of the Indian child; the unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915; the extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child; or other.
The requirements for adoption placement preferences in ICWA are a key piece of the protections provided under ICWA. Placement preferences serve the policies of protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by keeping adopted Indian children with their extended families, tribes or communities. These data elements will help provide greater understanding on how best to support Indian children in cases where adoption is the outcome. The data are important to assist in identifying trends or problems that may require enhanced recruitment of potential Indian adoptive homes or relative placements. The information from these data elements will allow ACF to distinguish between ICWA cases in which there was no available ICWA-placement and those cases where an available ICWA-placement was not used. The data will help assess the current status of kinship guardianship placements as well as to help identify a national plan for meeting permanency goals through kinship guardianship. This information will help to identify the scope of resources for training and technical assistance needed for states to recruit and support adoptive families to meet the unique cultural, social, and enrichment activity needs of Indian children. Reporting information on good cause to not follow ICWA adoption placement preferences will help to understand why the ICWA placement preferences are not followed, and will aid in identifying targeted training and resource needs to assist states in improving Indian child outcomes.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the E.O. The Department has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. In particular, ACF has determined that a regulation is the best and most cost effective way to implement the statutory mandate for a data collection system regarding children in foster care and those that are adopted and support other statutory obligations to provide oversight of child welfare programs. ACF consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this proposed rule does meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Thus, it was subject to OMB review.
ACF determined that the costs to title IV-E agencies as a result of this rule will not be significant. Federal reimbursement under title IV-E will be available for a portion of the costs that title IV-E agencies will incur as a result of the revisions proposed in this rule, depending on each agency's cost allocation plan, information system, and other factors.
1. ACF considered not collecting certain ICWA-related data in AFCARS. Not including ICWA-related data elements in AFCARS, or including too few data elements, may exclude Indian children and families from the additional benefit of improving AFCARS data.
2. ACF considered whether other existing data sets could yield similar information. ACF determined that AFCARS is the only comprehensive case-level data set on the incidence and experiences of children who are in foster care and/or adoption or guardianship with the involvement of the state or tribal title IV-E agency.
3. Previously, ACF considered whether to permit title IV-E agencies to sample and report information on a representative population of children. Such an alternative is unacceptable given the significant limitations associated with using a sampling approach for collecting data, including data on AI/AN children who are in foster care, adoption, and guardianship programs. Under a sampling approach, ACF would be unable to report reliable data responsive to the Annual Outcomes Report to Congress, the Report to Congress on the Social and Economic Conditions of Native Americans, and Adoption Incentives. Second, when using a sample, small population subgroups (
4. In each of 18 states, there were fewer than 10 Indian children in foster care according to FY 2013 AFCARS data. For states that have few Indian children in foster care, ACF considered alternatives to collecting ICWA-related data through AFCARS, such as providing an exemption from reporting, or an alternative submission process or that would be less burdensome. While ACF recognizes collecting the proposed ICWA-related data may be burdensome for states with few Indian children in foster care, the alternative approaches are not feasible due to:
• The statutory requirement that AFCARS data be comprehensive. Section 479(c)(3) requires that AFCARS provide “comprehensive national information.” Exempting some states from reporting the proposed ICWA-related data elements is not consistent with this statutory mandate, and would render it difficult to use this data for development of national policies for Indian children.
• The statutory requirement for assessing penalties on AFCARS data. Section 474(f) of the Act penalizes the title IV-E agency for non-compliance based on the total amount expended by the state for administration of foster care activities. The statute provides for mandatory penalties, therefore, we are not authorized to permit some states to be subject to a penalty and not others. In addition, allowing states an alternate submission process would complicate and/or prevent the assessment of penalties as proposed in the February 9, 2015 NPRM in proposed § 1355.46, including penalties for failure to submit data files free of cross-file errors, missing, invalid, or internally inconsistent data, or tardy transactions for each data element of applicable records.
• State agencies that elect to have a SACWIS provide some of the proposed ICWA-related data elements as part of the system requirements will already have systems designed to capture some ICWA-related data.
The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not affect small entities because it is applicable only to state title IV-E agencies.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $146 million. This proposed rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more.
This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-58) requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These proposed regulations will not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the law.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 requires that federal agencies consult with state and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with Federalism implications. Consistent with E.O. 13132, the Department specifically solicits comments from state and local government officials on this proposed rule.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35, as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. Information collection for AFCARS is currently authorized under OMB number 0970-0422. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking contains new information collection requirements in proposed § 1355.43, the out-of-home care data file that the Department has submitted to OMB for its review. This SNPRM proposes to require state title IV-E agencies to collect and report ICWA-related data elements in the AFCARS out-of-home care data file. PRA rules require that ACF estimate the total burden created by this SNPRM regardless of what information is already available.
ACF estimates the annual reporting and record keeping burden hours of this SNPRM to be 192,285 hours. ACF estimates a one-time burden associated with this SNPRM to be 85,072 hours. The 52 respondents comprise 52 state title IV-E agencies. The following are estimates.
In estimating the burden, ACF included both one-time burden estimates and annual burden estimates:
In developing the burden estimate, ACF made several assumptions about the data in state child welfare information systems. First, ACF assumed that state title IV-E agencies may have access to most of the information for proposed data elements. ACF anticipated the information for these data elements are contained in the state title IV-E agency's paper or electronic case files. ACF estimated that some of the data elements would only be in paper case files or narrative fields, thus not readily able to be extracted for AFCARS reporting, and would require revisions to the electronic case file so that the information can be extracted for AFCARS reporting. Some of these data elements concern collecting information on court findings and other activities taking place during court processes.
ACF proposes for state title IV-E agencies to report information in court orders that the state title IV-E agency would have ready access to or would typically be in the state title IV-E agency's case files. ACF is seeking state feedback as to whether the state agency has these readily available in their agency paper files or electronic files. These are:
• A court order indicating that the child's parent or Indian custodian or the Indian child's tribe requested orally on the record or in writing that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), and, where applicable, the reason(s) why the case was not transferred.
• A court order indicating the court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e).
• A court order indicating that the court made a finding of good cause, and the basis, if the placement preferences for foster care were not followed, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); and
• If the placement preferences for adoption were not followed, a court finding of good cause, and the basis, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe.
Second, in order to determine the number of cases for which state title IV-E agencies will have to report the ICWA-related data elements, ACF estimated the out-of-home care reporting population using the most recent FY 2014 AFCARS data available submitted by state title IV-E agencies: 415,129 children were in foster care on September 30, 2014 and 264,746 children entered foster care during FY 2014. The state title IV-E agency will be required to report approximately 3 data elements for all children who are in the out-of-home care reporting population and approximately 24 data elements on children to whom the ICWA-related data elements apply.
To estimate the number of children to whom the ICWA-related data elements apply, ACF used as a proxy those children whose race was reported as “American Indian or Alaska Native” in the most recent FY 2014 AFCARS data available. While not every child of this reported race category will be covered under ICWA, it is likely that the state title IV-E agency will have to explore whether these children may be Indian children as defined in ICWA. Thus, 5,960 children who entered foster care during FY 2014 were reported as American Indian or Alaska Native.
Third, ACF assumed that there will be one-time costs to implement the requirements of this SNPRM and annual costs to collect, input, and report the information. The annual costs involve searching data, gathering the information that meet the requirements of this SNPRM, entering the information, and extracting and submitting the information for AFCARS reporting. The one-time costs mostly involve modifying procedures and systems to collect, validate and verify information, adjusting existing ways to comply with AFCARS; and training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM.
Fourth, ACF assumed that the one-time burden is similar to how long it would take to make revisions to a SACWIS to be able to meet the requirements of the SNPRM. Currently, 36 states have an operational SACWIS. ACF understands that 24 states opted to collect at least a minimal amount of ICWA-related information per the SACWIS Assessment Review Guide, but also recognize that most state title IV-E agencies will require some revisions to meet the requirements of this SNPRM. As more states build SACWIS, ACF anticipates it will lead to more efficiency in reporting and less cost and burden to the state agencies.
Finally, after reviewing the 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics data to help determine the costs of the SNPRM, ACF assumed that there will be a mix of staff working to meet both the one-time and annual requirements of this SNPRM with the job role of Management Analyst (13-1111) with a mean hourly wage estimate of $43.68 and those with the job role of Social and Community Service Managers (11-9151) with a mean hourly wage estimate of $32.56. Thus, ACF averaged the two wages to come to an average labor rate of $38.12. In order to ensure we took into account overhead costs associated with these labor costs, ACF doubled this rate.
• Gathering the information for and entering the ICWA-related data elements that apply to all children who enter foster care on average will take approximately 132,373 annual burden hours. (0.5 hours × 264,746 children who entered foster care = 132,373 annual burden hours for all children in the out-of-home care reporting population)
• Gathering the information for and entering the ICWA-related data elements that apply to children in foster care who are covered by ICWA, on average will take 59,600 annual burden hours. (10 hours × 5,960 children who enter foster care with a race reported as American Indian or Alaska Native = 59,600 annual burden hours for children in the out-of-home care reporting population who are covered by ICWA). ACF estimated that it would take a state title IV-E agency on average 10 hours annually to gather and input the ICWA-related data elements that apply to children in foster care who are covered by ICWA. ACF estimated this by assuming that a state title IV-E agency would be gathering and inputting information for approximately 14 of the proposed data elements for an average foster care episode, if the child is not transferred and there is no TPR or adoption. In cases where the child is transferred, ACF estimated that the burden would decrease because the agency would have fewer data elements to complete and the burden would increase in cases where there is a TPR and the child is adopted because there would be more data elements that the agency would have to complete.
• Extracting and submitting the information to ACF for AFCARS reporting on average will take 6 annual burden hours per state title IV-E agency. Nationally, the hour burden for all 52 state title IV-E agencies would be 312 (6 hours × 52 states = 312). ACF took into account the number of data elements proposed in this SNPRM when estimating the reporting burden.
ACF added the bullets above and estimate the number of annual recordkeeping and reporting burden hours that workers will spend on ICWA-related AFCARS requirements in the out-of-home care reporting population annually will be 192,285 hours (132,373 + 59,600 + 312 = 192,285). Dividing this annual figure by the 52 state title IV-E agencies, ACF arrived at approximately 3,698 average burden hours per respondent per year for the ICWA-related information in the AFCARS out-of-home care data file. (192,285 ÷ 52 title IV-E agencies = 3,697.79 average burden hours per respondent per year.)
• Modifying procedures and systems (including developing or acquiring technology) to collect, validate, verify, process, and report the information to ACF on average will take approximately 130 burden hours.
• Adjustments to the existing ways to comply with AFCARS, developing technology and systems to collect and process data on average will take approximately 200 burden hours.
• The administrative tasks associated with training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM which include reviewing instructions, including training development and manuals on average will take approximately 30 burden hours.
• Training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM on average will take approximately 1,276 burden hours. ACF arrived at this estimate by dividing the number of children in foster care on September 30, 2014 (415,129) by an estimated average caseload of 25 cases per worker to arrive at an estimate of 16,605 workers to be trained. ACF divided this number (16,605) by 52 to account for average workers per state title IV-E agency, and arrived at 319 workers. ACF multiplied the workers (319) by the number of estimated hours to complete training (4 hours) to arrive at 1,276 burden hours to train personnel per state title IV-E agency on the new AFCARS requirements. ACF added the burden hours above (1,636 hours) and multiplied by 52 state title IV-E agencies, which results in a one-time burden of 85,072 hours (1,636 × 52 = 85,072 one-time burden hours).
ACF used a total cost and burden hour estimates to provide additional detail on projected average cost for each state title IV-E agency implementing the changes described in this SNPRM. Once the burden hours were determined, ACF developed an estimate of the associated cost for state title IV-E agencies to conduct these activities, as applicable. Based on our assumptions above, ACF used an average labor rate of $38.12 and doubled this rate to account for overhead costs ($76.24). Based on these rates, ACF estimated the cost for one-time burden to be $6,485,889.28 (85,072 one-time hours × $76.24 hourly cost/overhead = $6,485,889.28) and ACF estimated the cost for annual burden to be $14,659,808.40 (192,285 annual hours × $76.24 hourly cost = $14,659,808.40). Dividing these costs by 52 state title IV-E agencies, ACF estimated the average cost per state title IV-E agency to be $124,728.64 one-time and $281,919.39 annually. Federal reimbursement under title IV-E will be available for a portion of the costs that title IV-E agencies will incur as a result of the revisions proposed in this rule, depending on each agency's cost allocation plan, information system, and other factors.
In the above estimates, ACF acknowledges: (1) ACF has used average figures for state title IV-E agencies of very different sizes and of which, some states may have larger populations of tribal children served than other states, (2) these are rough estimates of the burden because state title IV-E agencies have not been required previously to report ICWA-related information in AFCARS, and (3) as described, ACF has limited information to use in making these estimates. ACF welcomes comments on these factors and all others in this section.
ACF will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in the following areas:
1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is sufficient to assess and serve the unique needs of AI/AN children under the placement and care of title IV-E agencies;
3. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
4. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
5. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology,
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
As we stated in section IV of this SNPRM, we held one Tribal consultation session via a teleconference call on May 1, 2015 and we did not receive suggestions from tribal representatives during the call. A few tribal representatives indicated that they would comment on the data elements through the SNPRM when it is issued.
We also stated in section IV of this SNPRM that we analyzed comments to the Feb. 2015 AFCARS NPRM that spoke to ICWA-related data elements to help inform this SNPRM. We received 45 comments that spoke to including new data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA; a majority of which were from tribes/tribal organizations. The commenters recommended data elements that provide basic information about the applicability of ICWA for children in out-of-home care, including: Identification of American Indian and Alaskan Native children and their family structure, tribal notification and intervention in state court proceedings, the relationship of the foster parents and other providers to the child, decisions to place a child in out-of-home care (including data on active efforts and continued custody), whether a placement was licensed by an Indian tribe, whether the placement preferences in ICWA were followed, and termination of parental rights (both voluntary and involuntary).
Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Grant programs—social programs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 1355 as proposed to be amended on February 9, 2015 (80 FR 7132), is proposed to be further amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 620
(i)
(2) For all children in the out-of-home care reporting population per § 1355.41(a), the state title IV-E agency must complete the data elements in paragraphs (i)(3) through (5) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency responds with “yes” to the data elements in paragraph (i)(4) or (5) of this section, then the agency must complete the remaining applicable paragraphs (i)(6) through (29) of this section.
(3)
(i) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive mother. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “the biological or adoptive mother is deceased.”
(ii) Indicate whether the biological or adoptive mother is a member of an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “unknown.”
(iii) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive father. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “the biological or adoptive father is deceased.”
(iv) Indicate whether the biological or adoptive father is a member of an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “unknown.”
(v) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's Indian custodian, if the child has one. Indicate “yes,” or “no” or “child does not have an Indian custodian.”
(vi) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child who is the subject of the proceeding. Indicate “yes” or “no.”
(vii) Indicate whether the child is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “unknown.”
(viii) Indicate whether the domicile or residence of the child, parent, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency to be, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation. Indicate “yes” or “no.”
(4)
(i) Indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency discovered the information that indicates that the child is or may be an Indian child.
(ii) Indicate the name(s) of all federally recognized Indian tribe(s) that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe(s).
(5) Indicate whether a court order indicates that the court found that ICWA applies. Indicate “yes, ICWA applies,” “no, ICWA does not apply,” or “no court finding.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes, ICWA applies,” the state title IV-E agency must complete paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no, ICWA does not apply,” the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(5)(i) of this section and leave the data element in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section blank. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no court finding,” the state title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section blank.
(i) Indicate the date of the court finding.
(ii) Indicate the name of the Indian tribe(s) that the court found is the Indian child's tribe, if listed on the court order. If a name is not listed on the court order, the state title IV-E agency must indicate “no name listed.”
(6)
(7) If the state court denied the request to transfer the case to tribal court, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the reason(s) why the case was not transferred to the tribal court. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the title IV-E agency must indicate whether each reason in each paragraphs (i)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section is in the court order by indicating “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicates “no,” the title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section blank.
(i) Either of the parents objected to transferring the case to the tribal court.
(ii) The tribal court declined the transfer to the tribal court.
(iii) The state court found good cause not to transfer the case to the tribal court.
(8)
(ii) Indicate whether the Indian child's tribe(s) was given legal notice more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a). Indicate “yes”, “no” or “the child's Indian tribe is unknown.”
(9) Indicate the name(s) of the Indian tribe(s) that were sent notice for a child custody proceeding as required in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1912(a).
(10) If the tribe(s) requested additional information, indicate whether the state title IV-E agency replied with the additional information that the Indian tribe(s) requested. If the tribe did not request additional information, indicate “does not apply.” Otherwise, indicate “yes” or “no.”
(11)
(12) Indicate whether the court found, in a court order, that the state title IV-E agency made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family for the most recent removal reported in paragraph (d) of this section and that these efforts were unsuccessful in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d). Indicate “yes” or “no.”
(13) Indicate the active efforts that the state title IV-E agency made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d). Indicate “yes” or “no” for each paragraph (i)(13)(i) through (xi) and (xiii) of this section. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “N/A” for paragraph (i)(13)(xii) of this section.
(i) Identify appropriate services to help the parent.
(ii) Actively assist the parent to obtain services.
(iii) Invite representatives of the Indian child's tribe to participate in the proceedings.
(iv) Complete a comprehensive assessment of the family.
(v) Focus on safe reunification as the goal for the Indian child.
(vi) Consult with extended family members to provide support for the Indian child.
(vii) Arrange for family interaction in most natural setting safely possible.
(viii) Monitor progress and participation in services to reunite the Indian family.
(ix) Consider alternative ways of addressing the needs of the Indian child's parent and extended family if services do not exist or are not available.
(x) Support regular visits and trial home visits consistent with ensuring the Indian child's safety.
(xi) Conduct or cause to be conducted a diligent search for the Indian child's extended family members for assistance and possible placement.
(xii) Keep siblings together.
(xiii) Other.
(14)
(15)
(i) A member of the Indian child's extended family.
(ii) A foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe.
(iii) An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority.
(iv) An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs.
(v) A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).
(16) For the Indian child's current foster care or pre-adoptive placement as of the end of the report period per paragraph (e) of this section, indicate whether the placement meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed. Indicate “a member of the Indian child's extended family,” “a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe,” “an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority,” “an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs,” “a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c)” or “none.”
(17) If the placement preferences for foster care or pre-adoptive placements were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(18) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” then the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraph (i)(18) of this section blank.
(18) Indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated on the court order, by indicating “yes” or “no” in each paragraph (i)(18)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Request of the biological parents.
(ii) Request of the Indian child.
(iii) The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915.
(iv) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child.
(v) Other.
(19)
(20) Indicate whether, prior to ordering an involuntary termination of parental rights, the state court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f). Indicate “yes” or “no.”
(21) Indicate whether the court finding reported for paragraph (i)(20) of this section, indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f). Indicate “yes” or “no.”
(22) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive mother was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “does not apply” if the mother is deceased.
(23) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive father was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “does not apply” if the father is deceased.
(24) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the Indian custodian was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “does not apply” if there is no Indian custodian.
(25)
(26) Indicate which adoptive placements that meet the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) were willing to accept placement. Indicate in each paragraphs (i)(26)(i) through (iv) of this section “yes” or “no.”
(i) A member of the Indian child's extended family.
(ii) Other members of the Indian child's tribe.
(iii) Other Indian families.
(iv) A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).
(27) Indicate whether the placement reported in paragraph (h) of this section meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed. Indicate “a member of the Indian child's extended family,” “other members of the Indian child's tribe,” “other Indian families,” “a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c),” or “none.”
(28) If the placement preferences for adoption were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(29) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” then the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraph (i)(29) of this section blank.
(29) Indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the court's basis for the finding of good cause, by indicating “yes” or “no” in each paragraph (i)(29)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Request of the biological parents.
(ii) Request of the Indian child.
(iii) The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915.
(iv) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child.
(v) Other.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), notify the public that, based on new information, we are making changes to our proposed rule of July 6, 2012, to list as endangered the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
The comment period for the proposed rule published July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222) is reopened. We will accept comments received on or before June 6, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA or Act), based on new information and information overlooked in the development of our July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222), proposed rule (“2012 Proposed Rule”), we are: (1) Revising the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of
Our intent is to use the best available scientific and commercial data as the foundation for all endangered and threatened species classification decisions. Further, we want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite range countries, tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments regarding our 2012 Proposed Rule and the changes we present in this revised proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.
Before issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into account all comments and any additional information we receive. Comments previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be resubmitted. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from our proposal. For example, new information provided may lead to a threatened status instead of an endangered status, an endangered status instead of a threatened status, or we may determine the entity may not warrant listing based on new information. Additionally, new information may lead to revisions to the proposed 4(d) rule and/or our proposed similarity of appearance finding. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning our changes to the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
We intend that any final actions resulting from this revised proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule. We particularly seek clarifying information concerning:
(1) New information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and trends, diet, and population abundance and trends specific to the northern DPS of
(2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land uses on the distribution and abundance of this species in northwest Colombia.
(3) Additional information pertaining to the northwest Colombia population, including any information on whether this population constitutes an SPR of the northern DPS of
Additionally, we invite range countries, tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to
(4) Revision of the status of the northern DPS of
(5) Addition of the proposed similarity of appearance listing of the for the southern DPS of
(6) Our 2012 Proposed Rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act that define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws listed as threatened and, unless a permit for otherwise prohibited activities is obtained under 50 CFR 17.52, to scarlet macaw subspecies crosses and the southern DPS of
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
During the public comment period for our 2012 Proposed Rule, we received several requests from the public for extension of the comment period. For this reason, and because we are amending our 2012 Proposed Rule, we are reopening the comment period on this proposed rule for 60 days.
During the public comment period, several commenters requested that the Service list the captive populations of the scarlet macaw in the United States by either (1) listing them as a distinct population segment (DPS), or (2) assigning them a separate listing status. In similar situations involving the agency's response to petitions to list all chimpanzees as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA) (78 FR 35201, June 12, 2013) and to delist U.S. Captive Populations of the Scimitar-horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax (78 FR 33790, June 5, 2013), we have considered the appropriateness of assigning captive-held animals a separate legal status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through designation as a DPS. For the same reasons stated in those previous actions, we find that it would not be appropriate to differentiate the legal status of captive-held animals of scarlet macaw from those in the wild. We find that the ESA does not allow for captive-held animals to be assigned separate legal status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through designation as a DPS. In analyzing threats to a species, we focus our analyses on threats acting upon wild specimens, generally those within the native range of the species, because the goal of the Act is survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. For more information, see our 12-month findings on a petition to delist three antelope species (78 FR 33790; June 5, 2013) and a petition to list chimpanzees (78 FR 35201; June 12, 2013).
During the public comment period of the 2012 Proposed Rule, several commenters requested we propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act addressing interstate commerce of scarlet macaws. See Proposed 4(d) Rule below.
On July 6, 2012, we published in the
Based on new information, some received from peer reviewers, we are proposing to make five substantive changes to our 2012 Proposed Rule. Specifically, we are: (1) Revising the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the northern subspecies,
In analyzing the status of the scarlet macaw, we consider to what extent, if any, captive individuals contribute to the viability of the species within its native range in the wild. Many scarlet macaws are held as pets or captive bred for the pet trade. It has been suggested that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild by reducing demand on wild populations for pets and, therefore, the number of individuals poached from the wild (Fischer 2004, entire). However, the effect of legal wildlife trade on market demand and wild populations is a complex phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors (Bulte and Damania 2005, entire; Fischer 2004, entire) and we are not aware of any evidence indicating that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade currently benefit wild populations.
It has also been suggested that pet scarlet macaws and scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade provide a safety net for the species by potentially providing a source of birds for reintroduction to the wild. However, pet scarlet macaws are poor candidates for re-introduction programs because those bred for the pet trade are bred with little regard for genetics and include an unknown number of subspecies crosses (Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75), pets socialized with humans fail to act appropriately with wild individuals when released, and individuals held as pets may pose a disease risk to wild populations (Brightsmith et al 2005, p. 471). We are not aware of any evidence indicating that release of pet or pet-trade scarlet macaws benefit wild populations. For additional information regarding our evaluation of reintroduction efforts, see
As indicated above, we are not aware of any information indicating that scarlet macaws held as pets or captive-bred for the pet trade contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild. Therefore, we do not consider them further in our assessment of species status, except when assigning status to subspecies crosses (see
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we considered the boundary of the subspecies
As indicated in our proposed rule, morphological evidence presented by Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) suggests southern Nicaragua and northern Costa Rica represent a transition zone between scarlet macaw subspecies. However, according to Schmidt (2013, p. 52), distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes shows a general pattern of geographic segregation rather than co-occurrence;
In addition to a pattern of geographic separation on the mainland, Schmidt (2013, pp. 69-73) found that genetic results from Isla Coiba (off the Pacific coast of Panama) are inconsistent with the broader phylogeographic patterns of diversity in the species. Four of five specimens from Isla Coiba carry a mitochondrial DNA haplotype characteristic of
Schmidt (2013) represents the only spatial analysis of scarlet macaw genetic variation across the historical geographic range of the species, and we consider Schmidt to be the best available information on subspecies range. Based on the results of Schmidt, the mainland Central America boundary between
In sum, in this revised proposed rule, we revise what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of scarlet macaw, from the previously proposed boundary in the general border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, to the revised boundary of the central highlands of Costa Rica (See Figure 2, below, for a visual representation of the revised proposed boundary between the two subspecies), with an anomalous population of
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that listing the whole southern subspecies,
In this revised proposed rule, we reaffirm our previous DPS determinations. Although the area considered to be the northern DPS of
We received additional information from a peer reviewer and obtained additional information from literature on scarlet macaws in the eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The eastern border between the two countries follows the Rio San Juan (San Juan River), which separates southeast Nicaragua and northeast Costa Rica. Below we summarize additional information on scarlet macaws in this region.
Anecdotal evidence on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica obtained during several years of research on great green macaws (
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we reported an estimate of 48-54 scarlet macaws in Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Costa Rica based on McReynolds (2011
During the 2009 macaw breeding season, Monge
Information pertaining to the scarlet macaw in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, one of the main threats to neotropical parrot species is loss of forest habitat. In northeast Costa Rica, Landsat TM satellite images from 1987, 1998, and 2005 showed a fragmented landscape with remnants of natural ecosystems. The annual rate of total deforestation was 0.88 percent for the 1987-1998 period and 0.73 percent for the 1998-2005 period, even considering recovery of secondary forest (Chassot
Deforestation is also ongoing in southeast Nicaragua. Southeast Nicaragua comprises the IMBR and its buffer zone. The reserve covers 306,980 ha (758,560 acres) (Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 63) and is one of Nicaragua's best preserved forested areas (Ravnborg
Forest conservation efforts are ongoing in the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border region, particularly within Costa Rica's 60,000-hectare (148,263-ac) San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor (Chassot & Monge 2012, entire). Although these efforts have resulted in lower deforestation rates within the
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, another main threat to neotropical parrot species, in general, is capture for the pet trade. Little information exists on the level of poaching of scarlet macaws in this region. However, poaching is recognized as a significant threat to the species in Nicaragua (77 FR 40235, July 6, 2012). In Nicaragua, capture of parrots for the pet trade is described as common, with scarlet macaws one of the most preferred species (77 FR 40235, July 6, 2012), and scarlet macaws are identified as one of the species most affected by illegal trafficking along the Rio San Juan (Castellón 2008, p. 27). In Costa Rica, poaching is known to occur at both of the other two populations in the country and is believed to be occurring at an unsustainable level in the Área de Conservación del Pacífico Central (Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC)) (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6, 2012). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that poaching of scarlet macaws occurs in the population on the eastern border between these two countries, though the extent is unknown.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined ongoing threats to the Isla Coiba, Panama population to be deforestation, poaching, and small population size in combination with other threats. We were not aware of any regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats; therefore, we concluded that the existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to protect the species. Based on comments from a peer reviewer, we obtained additional information on this population from additional experts and literature sources. Below we summarize this information.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that there were an estimated 100 scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba (Keller and Schmitt 2008). This estimate is based upon information obtained by Keller and Schmitt during discussions with biologists that worked on Coiba (Keller 2012,
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that some level of deforestation was occurring on Isla Coiba as a result of trampling and erosion caused by feral cattle (77 FR 40231, July 6, 2012). New information indicates that cattle on Coiba may be inhibiting the regrowth of former pasture to secondary forest, but are probably not having a significant impact on the larger forest trees on which
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection was inscribed on the World Heritage List as of 2005. In the 2014 Mission Report by the World Heritage Committee and IUCN, the Committee makes note to acknowledge that the Country of Panama has a strategy and is making progress in the removal of livestock from the property. The report indicates that the country has made a commitment to have all livestock removed by the end of 2014 (Douvere & Herrera 2014, unpaginated). However, we are not aware of any information indicating that the removal of cattle has occurred.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that poaching likely occurs at some level in Panama and that, because the current population is extremely small and isolated, even low levels of poaching would likely have a negative effect on the species in Panama. According to Angehr (2012) and Keller (2012), Panama's Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (National Environmental Authority) maintains a ranger station on the north end of the island, but patrols elsewhere on the island are probably limited. Keller (2012) indicates that
Additional information indicates that a recent program in Mexico is working to establish a viable population of
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that
Threats acting on
Subspecies estimates for each of the
As discussed in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we conclude that the low numbers of this subspecies throughout its range, the extreme fragmentation of its habitat and population throughout its range, and the substantial threats acting on this subspecies throughout its range place this subspecies in danger of extinction. Therefore, we reaffirm our July 6, 2012, finding (77 FR 40222) that
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of
The Central Pacific Costa Rica (ACOPAC) population numbers approximately 450 birds. According to a peer reviewer, the population at ACOPAC has been variably increasing and declining but is not in drastic decline according to the work by Vaughan et al. (2005). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, Vaughan (2005, p. 127) describes an increase in the previously declining ACOPAC population after implementation of intensive anti-poaching efforts in 1995 and 1996, but also indicates that neither these efforts nor the increasing trend of the macaw population was sustained. Rather, counts of macaws remained almost constant from 1996 to 2003. As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, poaching of wildlife is reported to occur in the area and scarlet macaws are susceptible to overharvest due to their demographic traits and naturally low rate of reproduction (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6, 2012). However, Vaughan indicates that the population was stable even with the level of poaching during that time. As a result, we specifically request information on the current trend of the ACOPAC scarlet macaw population.
We received two pieces of anecdotal information on the South Pacific Costa Rica (ACOSA) scarlet macaw population. One peer reviewer states that land owners along the south Pacific coast have informed him that scarlet macaws are being seen more commonly north of the Osa Peninsula, and it seems as though the species may be spreading north through this region. In addition, one commenter states that dozens can be seen on a daily basis on his property at the north end of the Gulfo Dulce, where 10 years ago, none existed.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we stated that, “In ACOSA, Dear
In 2005, Dear
Dear
Hilty and Brown (1986, p. 200) describe the range of scarlet macaw in northwest Colombia as the northern lowlands from eastern Cartagena to the low Magdalena Valley, southward to southeast Córdoba, and the middle Magdalena Valley southwest of Santander. The range in northwest Colombia includes the tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys, the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cuaca River valleys (Salaman
We are not aware of any estimates of the numbers of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia. The species is reported as probably close to extinction in the Magdalena Valley, Cuaca Valley, and north (Donegan 2013,
Scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia are believed to be affected primarily by habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013,
Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia (Colombia Gold Report 2012, pp. 1-2; Ortega & Lagos 2011, pp. 81-82). A few large tracts of forest remain within the range of the scarlet macaw in this region, and all are deforestation hotspots (Ortega & Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman
Regarding trade, parrots and macaws in the buffer zone of PNN Paramillo are often captured by settlers for the regional illegal markets (Racero 2008, pp. 127-128). We are unaware of any other information indicating that capture of scarlet macaws for the pet trade may be a threat to the species in northwest Colombia.
According to Dear
The range of birds released at Punta Banco has grown to reach 84 square km (32 square miles) (Dear
We are not aware of any information indicating that these three captive-release programs adhere to the IUCN Species Survival Commission guidelines for re-introductions, published by IUCN to help ensure that re-introduction efforts achieve intended conservation benefits and do not cause adverse side-effects of greater impact (IUCN/SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Nor are we aware that these reintroduction programs adhere to recommendations of White
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of
Based on our revision of the border between
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule and this revised proposed rule,
The ACOPAC scarlet macaw population numbers approximately 450 birds. As indicated above and in our 2012 Proposed Rule, poaching of wildlife is reported to occur in this area. Scarlet macaws are one of the most susceptible species to poaching due to the species' slow rate of reproduction. However, the population was holding steady even with the amount of poaching occurring during that time (Vaughan 2005, p. 127). This apparent stability of the population indicates that poaching may not currently be major threats to this population. However, we specifically seek additional information on the status of this population.
The most recent estimate of the ACOSA population, based on interviews with community members, is about 800-1,200 birds. Although the majority of residents interviewed indicated that there appeared to be more macaws in the year 2005 than in the 5 years previous (the year 2000), these results are based on perceptions of scarlet
The number of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia is unknown, but habitat loss has caused the decline of the species there, such that the species has been all but extirpated from large areas in the region. Much of northwest Colombia has been deforested. Large tracts of forest remain, for instance, in the areas of Serrania de San Lucas and PNN Paramillo. However, deforestation in the region is expected to continue. According to Gonzales
The Act defines “endangered” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and “threatened” as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that the scarlet macaws (
However, in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we discussed a potential listing of the southern DPS of
Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment as endangered or threatened if: “(a) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act.” All applicable prohibitions and exceptions for species treated as threatened under section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened or endangered species will be set forth in a rule proposed under section 4(d) of the Act.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we requested information regarding scarlet macaw morphological differences that may provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the listed entities and the non-listed entities. During the public comment period, we received information on several factors which make differentiating between scarlet macaw listable entities difficult. First, the scarlet macaw subspecies,
Thus, this close resemblance between the listed entities and the unlisted entities makes differentiating the scarlet macaw entities proposed for listing (the subspecies
We determine that treating the southern DPS of
For the reasons discussed above, we propose to treat the southern DPS of
The ESA provides measures to prevent the loss of species and their habitats. Section 4 of the Act sets forth the procedures for adding species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing regulations for threatened wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in § 17.31, incorporate the ESA section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a species-specific rule under section 4(d) of the Act is promulgated. For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. A rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act allows us to include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of that
We are proposing a 4(d) rule that would apply to the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and noncommercial international shipments of live and dead southern subspecies of scarlet macaws and subspecific crosses of
However, this proposed 4(d) rule would allow a person to import or export either: (1) A specimen held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or (2) a captive-bred specimen, without a permit issued under the Act, provided the export is authorized under CITES and the import is authorized under CITES and the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act, the importer or exporter will need to provide documentation to support that status, such as a copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed from the wild or museum specimen reports. For captive-bred birds, the importer would need to provide either a valid CITES export/re-export document issued by a foreign CITES Management Authority that indicates that the specimen was captive-bred by using a source code on the face of the permit of either “C,” “D,” or “F.” For exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the bird, along with documentation on the source of their breeding stock, would document the captive-bred status of U.S. birds.
The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to birds captive-bred in the United States and abroad. The terms “captive-bred” and “captivity”' used in this proposed rule are defined in the regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled environment that is intensively manipulated by man from parents that mated or otherwise transferred gametes in captivity. Although the proposed 4(d) rule requires a permit under the Act to “take” (including harm and harass) a scarlet macaw, “take” does not include generally accepted animal-husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury to the wildlife when applied to captive wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the scarlet macaw in light of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA. The scarlet macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES, a treaty that contributes to the conservation of the species by monitoring international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix-I species is not detrimental to the survival of the species. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that imports of exotic birds into the United States do not harm them. The best available data indicate that the current threat to the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic markets of Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77-80, citing several sources; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Thus, the general prohibitions on import and export contained in 50 CFR 17.31, which extend only within the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such activities. Accordingly we find that the import and export requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the necessary and advisable conservation measures for this species.
Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (1) Be logically organized; (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (3) Use clear language rather than jargon; (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rulemaking will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available on the Internet at
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The primary author of this revised proposed rule is the staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on July 6, 2012, at 77 FR 40222, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested cockatoo
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, all prohibitions of § 17.31 of this part apply to these species.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The purpose of this action is to modify the specifications for northern and southern red hake for fishing years 2016 and 2017. This action is necessary to implement the Council's recommended measures in response to updated scientific information. The proposed specifications are intended to help achieve sustainable yield and prevent overfishing.
Public comments must be received by April 22, 2016.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0030, by any of the following methods:
•
•
New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared a Supplemental Information Report for the small-mesh multispecies specifications that describes the proposed action. The Council's document provides a discussion of the alternatives and the expected impacts. Copies of the specifications-related documents are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9218.
The New England Fishery Management Council manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). It is managed separately from the other stocks of groundfish such as cod, haddock, and flounders, primarily because the fishery uses small mesh and modified nets that do not generally result in the catch of these other stocks. Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (April 4, 2013; 78 FR 20260) established a process and framework for setting the small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, as well as set the specifications for the 2012-2014 fishing years. On May 28, 2015, specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years were published (80 FR 30379), based on stock assessment updates using data through the spring 2014 survey. These specifications were based on an update to the previously accepted stock assessment, using data through the 2014 Federal spring trawl survey. A stock assessment update was completed in 2015, using data through the 2015 spring survey. The 2015 update indicates that the northern red hake stock is increasing in biomass, while the southern stock is decreasing.
The purpose of this action is to modify the northern and southern red hake specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. The New England Fishery Management Council recommended these changes in response to its review of the most recent stock assessment update. A large year-class of northern red hake was identified in the 2013 Federal survey data. Because those fish were small at the time the 2015-2017 specifications were set, the impact to the specifications was minimal; however, the potential for a large increase in biomass during the middle of the specifications period was likely. The Council requested an update to the stock assessment in 2015 to monitor this year class and to adjust the specifications, if warranted.
As expected, the 2015 stock assessment update showed an increase in the northern red hake stock. The update also showed a decrease in the southern red hake stock; however, the reasons for the decline in the southern stock area are unclear.
In response to these changes, this rule proposes to increase the northern red hake and to decrease the southern red hake 2016 and 2017 annual catch limits and total allowable landings limits (Table 1), consistent with the stock assessment update and the Council's recommendation. The increase to the northern stock specifications will allow the fishery to benefit from this increase in biomass, as well as avoiding unnecessary discards by ensuring the possession limit is not reduced sooner than needed, while not substantially changing the already low risk of overfishing. The decrease in the southern stock specifications is necessary to reduce the risk of overfishing, even though recent landings are approximately 20 percent below the proposed revised specifications (Table 2).
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a supplemental information report. These analyses identified 1,007 unique fishing entities, 990 of which are considered small under current business standards, in the Greater Atlantic Region that could be affected by the proposed change. However, only 167 federally permitted vessels, all of which qualify as small entities under the Small Business Administration's small business standards, are expected to
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of a call for nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a call for nominations to the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2015 for the 2015-2017 two-year term.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 4, 2016.
Nominations should be sent to Charles W. Parrott, Deputy Administrator, Specialty Crops Program, through Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Officer, at AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2077-S, Stop 0235, Washington, DC 20250-0235; Facsimile: (202) 720-0016. Email:
Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official; Phone: (202) 720-3334; Email:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to nominate twelve (12) industry members to the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee to serve two-year terms. The purpose of the Committee is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry, and provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service's Specialty Crops Program will serve as the Committee's Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee Chairperson.
Industry members will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve two-year terms. Committee membership consists of twenty-five (25) members who represent the fruit and vegetable industry and will include individuals representing fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, wholesalers, brokers, retailers/restauranteurs, processors, fresh cut processors, foodservice suppliers, farmers markets and food hubs, state agencies involved in organic and conventional fresh fruits and vegetables at local, regional and national levels, State departments of agriculture, and trade associations and other commodity organizations.
The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals or themselves for membership on the Committee. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's fruit and vegetable industry qualifications for membership to the Committee, and list their name, company/organization, address, telephone number, email, and fax number. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
Individuals who are nominated will receive necessary qualification and background forms from USDA for membership. The biographical information and clearance forms must be completed and returned to USDA within 10 working days of notification, to expedite the clearance process that is required before selection of Committee members by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the Committee in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and limited resource agriculture producers.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States, contact Mr. Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2114. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
In accordance with these regulations, APHIS allows the importation of Unshu oranges from Cheju Island, Republic of Korea, into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, including packinghouse registration and a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the fruit has undergone surface sterilization and was inspected and found free of the plant pathogen that causes sweet orange scab.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Economic Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Economic Research Service's intention to request approval for a new information collection for the study of “Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System.” This is a new collection to provide information on usage and expectations of future use among requestors of genetic resources from USDA's National Plant Germplasm System.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
The information to be collected by the “Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System” is necessary to assess and understand the types and varieties of germplasm needed by breeders and other scientists in both the public and private sectors. This study will provide data not currently available to program officials and researchers, thereby broadening the scope of economic analyses of genetic enhancement, and in turn, enhancing R&D and productivity research at the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Plant Germplasm System, and the National Germplasm Resource Laboratory. The database would contain
A web-based instrument will be used for information collection. It will be kept as simple and respondent-friendly as possible. Responses are voluntary. The study instrument is based on a mailed paper-based instrument used in the 2000 study, “Demand for Genetic Resources from the National Plant Germplasm System.” It was jointly developed by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Auburn University's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, the National Germplasm Resources Lab of the National Plant Germplasm System, and the Economic Research Service. The instrument used in the 2000 study was administered by IFPRI and Auburn University and had a response rate of 35%. Study design for currently proposed study is consistent with that of the 2000 study in order to make comparisons across time. The frame for this census comprises all germplasm requestors to the NPGS for any of the ten crops in the last five years. Although the NPGS provided germplasm to any requestor free of cost, it also informed potential requestors and received their consent, at the time of a request was made, that their information could be used for activities relating to the service that they had requested. Several measures will be taken to support the response rate for the proposed information collection:
• Information will be collected via the internet rather than by mail. This data collection mode is more convenient for intended respondents and will allow for rapid follow up with non-respondents.
• This information collection will be cosponsored by the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory of USDA, which is familiar to the recipients as it is the agency that provided the requested germplasm.
• A well planned recruitment protocol will include sending the instrument with a cover letter from a senior staff member of the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, who will be an individual familiar to many of the recipients. It also includes up to three reminder emails to non-respondents.
Should the response rate fall below 80%, a non-response bias study will be conducted. The web-based instrument was pretested for ease of use by fewer than ten germplasm requestors contacted by USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the average time spent completing the forms was 13 minutes.
Information from the Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System will be used for statistical purposes only and reported only in aggregate or statistical form. A public use data file will be created from this information collection. ERS does not intend to invoke CIPSEA or any other data protection statute for this collection, because it will not collect any sensitive or personal identifiable information.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana
April 26, 2016.
Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 US Hwy 2, Libby, Montana.
JeriAnn Chapel, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7643, or email
Agenda will include membership discussion—replacement/new, establishing committee rules, procedures and revisit project priorities, and review the status of prior projects list. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Missoulian, based in Missoula, Montana.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Wenatchee, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (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. The purpose of the meeting is to review projects proposed for RAC consideration under Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on May 3, 2016.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Sunnyslope Fire Station, 206 Easy Street, Wenatchee, Washington.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
RAC Coordinator Robin DeMario by phone at 509-664-9292 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 meetings is to:
1. Provide status updates regarding Secure Rural Schools Program and Title II funding; and
2. Review and recommend projects for Title II funding for Kittitas and Yakima Counties.
These meetings are 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 April 11, 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 Robin DeMario, RAC Coordinator, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801; by email to
Office of Administration, Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
This notice announces the expansion of employee coverage under the Commerce Alternative Personnel System, formerly the Department of Commerce Personnel Management Demonstration Project, published in the
This notice expanding and modifying the Commerce Alternative Personnel System is effective April 7, 2016.
Department of Commerce—Sandra Thompson, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 51020, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0056 or Valerie Smith at (202) 482-0272.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved the Department of Commerce (DoC) demonstration project for an alternative personnel management system, and published the final plan in the
CAPS provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice announces that the DoC expands CAPS to include non-bargaining unit employees in NOAA, OCIO, in all duty locations, as a participating organization. OCIO will convert employees to career paths and occupational series already established under CAPS, requiring no additional series to be added to accommodate the expansion.
The DoC will follow the CAPS plan as published in the
CAPS is designed to (1) improve hiring and allow DoC to compete more effectively for high-quality candidates through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruitment incentives; (2) motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention incentives; (3) strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and (4) increase the efficiency of personnel systems through the installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation.
The current participating organizations include 7 offices of the Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration in the Office of the Secretary; the Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2 units of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): the Institute for Telecommunications Science and the First Responder Network Authority (an independent authority within NTIA); and 11 units of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Weather Service — Space Environment Center, National Ocean Service, Program Planning and Integration Office, Office of the Under Secretary, Marine and Aviation Operations, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Workforce Management Office.
This amendment modifies the December 24, 1997,
CAPS is designed to provide managers at the lowest organizational level the authority, control, and flexibility to recruit, retain, develop, recognize, and motivate its workforce, while ensuring adequate accountability and oversight.
The expansion of coverage to include NOAA, OCIO, should improve OCIO's ability to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce.
DoC's CAPS allows for modifications of procedures if no new waiver from law or regulation is added. Given that this expansion and modification is in accordance with existing law and regulation and CAPS is a permanent alternative personnel system, the DoC is authorized to make the changes described in this notice.
Employee notification of this expansion will be accomplished by providing a full set of briefings to employees and managers and providing them electronic access to all CAPS policies and procedures, including the nine previous
The CAPS at DoC, published in the
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. With respect to the antidumping duty orders of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India and Thailand, the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review for these cases will be published in a separate initiation notice.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, except for the reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the PRC, the Department intends to select respondents, for the instant reviews, based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. We note that the units used to measure U.S. import quantities of solar cells and solar modules in CBP data are “number”; however, it would not be meaningful to sum the number of imported solar cells and the number of imported solar modules in attempting to determine the volume of subject merchandise exported by Taiwanese exporters. Moreover, we also have concerns regarding inconsistencies in the unit of measure used to report CBP data for solar modules exported from the PRC. Therefore, all parties for which we have initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the PRC are hereby notified that they must timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire issued by the Department. Please be advised that due to the time
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Furthermore, companies to which the Department issues Q&V questionnaires in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC must submit a timely and complete response to the Q&V questionnaire, in addition to a timely and complete Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification made by parties to whom the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire but who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than Febuary 28, 2017.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) received requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India and Thailand for the period February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016. The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews.
Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-6345 (India) and Dennis McClure (202) 482-5973 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
During the anniversary month of February 2016, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter, AHSTAC), the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and certain individual companies.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has
In the 2011-2012 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department found that Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Kosamut) and Tanaya International Co., Ltd./Tanaya Intl (collectively, Tanaya) were neither exporters nor producers of the subject merchandise, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 351.102(b)(29)(i). Accordingly, we rescinded the review for these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
In the 2013-2014 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department did not initiate a review with respect to GSE Lining Technology Co., Ltd. because the company neither produced nor exported shrimp.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from India and Thailand. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2017.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping duty proceedings.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 7, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) in the antidumping investigation of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil.
Effective Date: March 7, 2016.
Hermes Pinilla or Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.
On March 7, 2016, CSN timely filed an allegation that the Department made a significant ministerial error.
The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” Further, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.” A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than
CSN alleges that the Department committed a ministerial error by double-counting its processing cost when the Department revised CSN's cost of manufacturing. Specifically, CSN contends that in recalculating CSN's cost of manufacturing, the Department double counted its home market resellers' processing costs, which significantly overstated the derived costs for the foreign like product produced by CSN and its home market reseller. The Department reviewed CSN's reporting of processing costs and we agree with CSN that this is a ministerial error in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(f).
We are amending the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value for cold-rolled flat steel produts from Brazil to reflect the correction of a ministerial error made in the margin calculations of that determination. As a result of the correction of the ministerial error, we have also revised the dumping margins applicable to Usiminas
The collection of cash deposits will be revised in accordance with sections 733(d) and (f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the correction of the error for CSN results in a reduced cash deposit rate for all of the respondents, the revised rates calculated for CSN, Usiminas, and companies covered by the “all others” rate will be effective retroactively to March 7, 2016, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The rates for CSN and Usiminas, when adjusted for export subsidies, are 16.71 and 31.61 percent, respectively; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise, less export subsidies; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters when adjusted for export subsidies is 16.86 percent.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Tade Commission (ITC) of our amended affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed in connection with this amended preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity will meet Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the goals and outcomes of the Commission's work with an emphasis on topics for the Commission to review as it develops detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. All sessions will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, U.S. Commerce Research Library Reading Room, Room 1894, located on the first floor at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public and interested parties are requested to contact Kevin Stine in advance of the meeting for building entrance requirements.
Kevin Stine, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900, telephone: (301) 975-4483, or by email at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (“the Commission”) will meet Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The Commission is authorized by Executive Order 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Commission at any time. All written statements should be directed to the Commission Executive Director, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8900, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Public meeting; notice of agenda change.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, April 19, 20, and 21, 2016. It will start at 9 a.m. on April 19, and at 8:30 a.m. on both April 20th and 21st.
The meeting will be held at the Mystic Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; telephone: (860) 572-0731, or online at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
The original notice published on April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19136). This notice publishes an additional item to the agenda on April 21, 2016.
The Council has added an additional item to its existing agenda on the final meeting day of its April 19-21, 2016 meeting.
Following a lunch break scheduled for 12:30 p.m., on April 21st, the Council has added consideration of a change to the spiny dogfish trip limit. Prior to taking any action, the NEFMC will receive an overview on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's request for the increase.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Daniel Studt, (562) 980-4073 or
This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection. The chain of custody recordkeeping requirements approved under an emergency revision per an interim final rule filed on March 22, 2016 (81 FR 15444), will become a permanent part of the collection.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects information to implement the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (Act). The Act allows entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States (U.S.), under specific conditions, from nations in the International Dolphin Conservation Program that would otherwise be under embargo. The Act also allows U.S. fishing vessels to participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) on terms equivalent with the vessels of other nations. NOAA collects information to allow tracking and verification of “dolphin-safe” and “non-dolphin safe” tuna products from catch through the U.S. market.
The regulations implementing the Act are at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 form the basis for this collection of information. This collection includes permit applications, notifications, tuna tracking forms, reports, and certifications that provide information on vessel characteristics and operations in the ETP, the origin of tuna and tuna products, chain of custody recordkeeping requirements and certain other information necessary to implement the Act.
Paper applications, other paper records, electronic and facsimile reports, and telephone calls or email messages are required from participants. Methods of submittal include transmission of paper forms via regular mail and facsimile as well as electronic submission via email or an FTP site (password protected).
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would allow a commercial lobster fishing vessel in collaboration with the University of New England to conduct research on the injury and mortality of Atlantic cod caught as bycatch in lobster traps fished in the Gulf of Maine.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for a proposed exempted fishing permit.
Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2016.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-9112.
The University of New England (UNE) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to assess injury and mortality of cod caught as bycatch in lobster traps fished in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). This EFP would exempt a commercial lobster fishing vessel from the prohibition on landing Northeast (NE) multispecies established under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) at 50 CFR 648.14(k)(1)(i)(B). The vessel would also be exempt from the possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subparts B and D through O. The exemption from the prohibition on landing NE multispecies would allow the vessel to retain cod to evaluate injuries resulting from their catch. The possession limit and minimum size requirement exemptions would allow the vessel's crew to tag cod with acoustic transmitters and collect biological data before cod and other bycaught species are returned to sea. The EFP would allow these exemptions from May through October 2016. The data from this study are designed to provide fisheries managers information on cod discard mortality associated with the GOM lobster fishery. The NMFS Bycatch Reduction Engineering program funds this project.
If the EFP is approved, the participating lobster vessel would deploy 400 traps in statistical area 513. Lobster traps would be hauled twice a week for 24 weeks, with a soak time of approximately 48-72 hours for each trip. The crew of the vessel would collect viability data for cod bycatch as outlined in the research proposal. A subsample (n = 100) of cod would be tagged with acoustic transmitters and released. The tagged cod would be monitored by an array of 30 acoustic receivers to evaluate acute and delayed mortality in their natural environment. Approximately 10 cod would be retained and landed each month to assess barotrauma and other physical effects of their capture. UNE research staff would accompany each trip in which cod are tagged or retained as part of the study. The vessel will retain the previously mentioned 10 cod per sampling month and all legal lobsters will be retained and sold. All other animals captured in the traps would be returned to the sea as soon as possible.
If approved, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records notice, System Identifier, F036 AFMC D, entitled “Education/Training
Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Mr. LaDonne L. White, Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or by phone at (571) 256-2515.
The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Education/Training Management System (ETMS) (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793)
Delete entry and replace with “Education and Training Management System (ETMS)”
Delete entry and replace with “Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.”
Delete entry and replace with “Air Force active duty personnel and civilian employees, National Guard, and Reserve personnel.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name, Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, home address, personal telephone numbers, personal email address, degree earned and year, courses taken, date of hire and employment end date, supervisory level attained, pay plan and grade, series, rank, Air Force Specialty Code, and duty title. Acquisition license history to include occupational certifications, acquisition level and date attained. Training course dates, course codes, course titles, and hours completed.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; Air Force Materiel Command Instruction (AFMCI) 36-401, Employee Training and Development; Title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41: Training; (EEO) Act of 1972 (PL 92-261); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “To collect education and training information that will support the needs of the education and training communities located at Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command and subordinate units.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Air Force complilation of system of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name and/or SSN”.
Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in a secure facility on the installation; physical entry is restricted by security guards and presentation of authenticated identification badges at entry control points, and cipher locks and key cards for access into buildings. Records are accessed by the custodian of the record system and by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in the performance of their official duties using Common Access Cards. Persons are properly screened and cleared for access. The information is protected by using user profiles, passwords, and encryption.
User profiles are role-based and ensure that only data accessible to the individual's role will appear on the screen.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are destroyed 10 years after the individual completes or discontinues a training course, when superseded, obsolete, or training is completed and posted to the employees official personnel record. Computer records are destroyed by erasing, deleting, or overwriting.”
Delete entry and replace with “Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.”
For verification purposes, individual should provide their name, SSN, and any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written requests to Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their name, SSN, and any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Delete entry and replace with “The Air Force rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332, The Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program; 32 CFR part 806b, and may be obtained from the system manager.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual, Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS), Air Force Directory Service (AFDS), and Automated Distributed Learning System (ADLS)
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records notice, A0690-700 DAPE, Grievance Records. This system is used to review allegations, obtain facts, conduct hearings when appropriate, and render decision.
Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-7499.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on March 28, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Grievance Records (August 30, 1993, 58 FR 45488)
Delete entry and replace with “Servicing civilian personnel offices for each Army activity or installation. Official mailing addresses of installations and activities are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”
Delete entry and replace with “Current or former employees of the Department of the Army who have
Delete entry and replace with “Name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated; copies of documents in the employee's possession related to the grievance, including statements of witnesses, reports of interviews and hearings, examiner's finding and recommendations, copy of the original and final decisions, and related correspondence and exhibits; and the name, address and telephone number of the employee's representative, if any.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 5 CFR 771, Agency Administrative Grievance System; Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, Volume 771, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Administrative Grievance System.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at:
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “All records are maintained in a secured office and building. Lockable file cabinets are used. Access to computerized data is restricted by use of common access cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”
Delete entry and replace with “Closed cases are retired at the end of the calendar year, and destroyed by shredding or burning four years after the calendar year cutoff date.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.
Individuals should provide the name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).' ”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.
Individual should provide the name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).' ”
Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program; or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Delete entry and replace with “From the individual on whom the record is maintained; testimony of witnesses; and related correspondence.”
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to add a new System of Records.
The Department of the Army proposes to add a new system of records, A0 1000.21, OAA DoD, entitled “Visa Passport Automated System (VPAS),” to track and provide real time status on the processing of no-fee passport and visa applications for all military and government civilian personnel and eligible dependent family members.
Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22315-3827 or by phone at 703-428-7499.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 28, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Visa Passport Automated System (VPAS).
Logistics Services Washington (LSW), 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.
This applies to all U.S. citizen military personnel (active duty and reserve) and civilian employees and their family members eligible for a no-fee passport and/or visa. Eligibility is determined by U.S. citizenship and passport or visa requirements outlined in the DoD Foreign Clearance Guide. Family members must be authorized to accompany the sponsor on official travel orders.
The following information is recorded in the system: Full name, date of birth, place of birth, sponsor's name and Social Security Number (SSN), military rank/civilian grade, current home address, email address, the destination, the travel date, the no-fee passport number, issue and expiration date, the purpose of travel, assignment type and duration of assignment, and date the passport is required.
Full name, date of birth, place of birth, home address, home telephone number, and office telephone number.
10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; DoD 1000.21-R, Passport and Passport Agent Services Regulation; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
The purpose of this system is to track and provide real time status on the processing of no-fee passport and visa applications for all U.S. citizen military personnel (active duty-reserve) and civilian employees and their family members eligible for a no-fee passport.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the Department of State for the issuance of a no-fee passport, a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) stamp.
To Foreign Embassies to obtain a foreign entry visa.
To a Federal, State, local government or foreign agency as a routine use in response to such an agency's request for information arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, if necessary, and only to the extent necessary, to enable such agency to discharge its responsibilities of enforcing or implementing the statute.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at:
Electronic storage media and paper records.
Full name, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, and telephone number.
Records are kept in a secure and controlled area. Access to the system is CAC protected and is restricted to authorized personnel. The application is scanned for vulnerabilities by the Army/OAA/ITA Enterprise Information & Mission Assurance Organization.
Disposition pending until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved retention and disposition of these records, treat as permanent.
Division Chief, Logistics Services Washington, Travel Services Division, 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Logistics Services Washington (LSW), 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.
The requester should provide full name, mailing address, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, telephone number, email, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves,
The requester should provide full name, mailing address, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, telephone number, email, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The Army's rule for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual.
None.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection under Control Number 0704-0216 for use through August 31, 2016. DoD is proposing that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years.
DoD will consider all comments received by June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0216, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Christopher Stiller, at 571-372-6176. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at:
The clause at DFARS 252.228-7005, Accident Reporting and Investigation Involving Aircraft, Missiles, and Space Launch Vehicles, requires the contractor to report promptly to the administrative contracting officer all pertinent facts relating to each accident involving an aircraft, missile, or space launch vehicle being manufactured, modified, repaired, or overhauled in connection with the contract.
The clause at DFARS 252.228-7006, Compliance with Spanish Laws and Insurance, requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with a written representation that the contractor has obtained the required types of insurance in the minimum amounts specified in the clause, when performing a service or construction contract in Spain.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 9, 2016.
a. The information required by DFARS subpart 242.11 is used by contract administration offices to monitor contract progress, identify factors that may delay contract performance, and to ascertain potential contract delinquencies.
b. The information required by DFARS 252.242-7004 is used by contracting officers to determine if contractor material management and accounting systems conform to established DoD standards.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense.
Notice; request for comments.
The Department of Defense (DoD or “the Department”), is proposing to establish a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This proposal is pursuant to the authority granted to DoD by section 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.
Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Cheryl A. Opere, Pay Team, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, Department of Defense, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 05J25, Alexandria, VA 22350-1100.
Cheryl Opere, 571-372-1682.
The Department is proposing to implement a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This is being established in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.
The current $800.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of Federal uniformed security guards. The uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Winter gloves; battle dress uniform pants and blouses; cold weather and light weight duty jackets; duty sweaters; dress duty trousers; short sleeve summer and long sleeve winter duty dress shirts; jacket and pants rain gear; felt hats; duty caps; high gloss duty shoes; leather duty boots; duty ties; heavy duty battle dress uniform duty coats; cloth uniform insignia patches and cloth uniform badges. The average total uniform cost for the listed items is $1,800.00. Based on these current costs, the Department is proposing to increase the initial maximum uniform allowance for uniformed police personnel to $1,800.00. The number of uniformed security guard personnel affected by this change in the Department would be approximately 3,400 employees. The proposed effective date of this higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate is April 1, 2016.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.
2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., April 8, 2016.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.
Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemption to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The IAL program supports the implementation of high-quality plans for childhood literacy activities and book distribution efforts that are supported by evidence of strong theory.
This priority is:
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding logic model.
The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:
(a) A description of the proposed book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy skills of children and students by one or more of the following—
(1) Promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;
(2) Developing and improving students' reading ability;
(3) Motivating older children to read; and
(4) Teaching children and students to read.
(b) The age or grade spans of children and students from birth through 12th grade to be served.
(c) A detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information submitted as evidence of strong theory); and
(d)(i) A description of how the proposed project is supported by strong theory; and
(ii) The corresponding logic model.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to leverage technology through using high-speed Internet access and devices to increase students' and educators' access to high-quality accessible digital tools, assessments, and materials, particularly open educational resources.
Projects that are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the essential domains of school readiness for children from birth through third grade (or for any age group within this range) through a focus on one or more of the following:
(a) Increasing access to high-quality early learning and development
(b) Improving the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce so that early childhood educators, including administrators, have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to improve young children's health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes.
(c) Sustaining improved early learning and development outcomes throughout the early elementary school years.
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or both, to students served by a rural LEA.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(i) Except for LEAs referenced in paragraph (ii), an LEA in which at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the school attendance area of the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year (Census list).
(ii) For an LEA that is not included on the Census list, such as a charter school LEA, an LEA for which the State educational agency (SEA) determines, consistent with the manner described under section 1124(c) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.
A local affiliate of an NNP does not meet the definition of NNP. Only a national agency, organization, or institution is eligible to apply as an NNP.
Sections 5411-5413 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; Title III of Division H of Pub. L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) Be one of the following:
(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice);
(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;
(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;
(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; or
(5) A consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs.
(b) Coordinate with school libraries in developing project proposals.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.215G.
To obtain a copy from the program office, write, call, or send an email to the following person: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E332, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
2. a.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 25 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will be not accepted.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; eligibility information; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the logic model, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.
The applicant should include, as an attachment, the logic model used to address paragraph (d)(ii) of the absolute priority.
b.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program, CFDA number 84.215G, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the IAL program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application. These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E335, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email:
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215G), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215G), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
(b)
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (4 points)
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population. (4 points)
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (4 points)
(iv) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project. (4 points)
(v) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise. (4 points)
(c)
(i) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (10 points)
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (10 points)
(iii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (5 points)
(d)
(i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits. (5 points)
(e)
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (10 points)
(ii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)
(f)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
For purposes of measures (2) and (3) above, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, the applicable statutory provision is section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E332, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
* Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
** Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2).
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10294 North County Bank, Arlington, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of North County Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective April 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10326 Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Legacy Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective April 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Election Commission.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or an arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
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
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 May 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 22, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; Correction.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a document in the
Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-4965; email:
In the
The total burden hours requested for the research study in Sierra Leone is 1,836 hours.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 6, 2016.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0221-60D for reference.
Annual submission of the FPAR is required of all Title X family planning services grantees for purposes of monitoring and reporting program performance (45 CFR part 74 and 45 CFR part 92). The FPAR is the only source of annual, uniform reporting by all grantees funded under Section 1001 of the Title X Public Health Service Act. The FPAR provides consistent, national-level data on the Title X Family Planning program and its users that allow OPA to assemble comparable and relevant program data to answer questions about the characteristics of the population served, use of services offered, composition of revenues that complement Title X funds, and impact of the program on key health outcomes.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Indian Health Service.
Final notice.
This final notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) service delivery area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts pursuant to 42 CFR 136.22. The Aquinnah service delivery area previously covered Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County in the State of Massachusetts. The expanded service delivery area includes counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Dukes Counties in the State of Massachusetts. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize Aquinnah to cover additional tribal members and beneficiaries under Aquinnah's PRC program using the existing Federal allocation for PRC funds.
The effective date of expansion will be 60 days from the date of this notice.
Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).
As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC service delivery area shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRC service delivery area, the Secretary may from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRC service delivery area. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.
Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRC service delivery area must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). In compliance with this requirement, IHS published a proposed notice of redesignation and requested public comments on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51281). Aquinnah requested that IHS expand the Aquinnah service delivery area to include Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties in the State of Massachusetts.
In support of this expansion, IHS adopts the following findings of the Aquinnah Tribe:
(1) By expanding, the Tribe's estimated current eligible population will be increased by 268.
(2) The Tribe has determined these 268 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.
(3) The expanded area including Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties in the State of Massachusetts are across the Bay from Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts.
(4) The Tribal members located in these counties currently do not use the Indian health system for their health care needs.
Aquinnah will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by IHS to Aquinnah to provide services to its members residing in these counties nor should this expansion be construed to have any present or future effect on the allocation of resources between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Aquinnah.
Here, IHS proposed to expand a PRC delivery area beyond the geographic description of “on or near” that Congress set forth in a settlement or recognition act. IHS offered stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the departure from historic practice by issuing a notice of proposed expansion prior to issuing a final notice to ascertain whether the departure is disruptive to tribes that have previously relied on IHS's historic practice. IHS did not receive comments that identify a detrimental reliance interest. Accordingly, when considering the geographic proximity of the proposed expansion area under 42 CFR 136.22 to the existing reservation (or service delivery area), IHS will no longer rigidly apply a Congressional finding of “on or near” as prohibiting PRC delivery area expansion in considering expansion requests. Although this is a change in the implementation of the redesignation authority found at 42 CFR 136.22, no change is necessary to the text of the regulation itself.
In making this change, however, IHS notes that Congress has, at times, statutorily enacted PRC service delivery areas for some tribes or for entire States. See,
The BIA recognized the Aquinnah Tribe as an Indian Tribe eligible for Federal benefits on February 10, 1987, pursuant to a notice published in the
Aquinnah provides limited direct services to its Tribal members by operating a small clinic in Dukes County that is open once or twice a month. To access direct care services, non-residents must travel over one and a half hours via ferry and car to receive the health care offered at the clinic. As a consequence, most non-residents do not seek care on the island.
Indian Health Service.
Notice of meeting.
In 2015, the Indian Health Service (IHS) sought public input in writing and in person through a Notice of Request for Information (80 FR 32167) and two meetings in the Washington, DC area to gather feedback on best practices to advance and promote the health needs of the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit (LGBT2S) community (80 FR 43447 and 80 FR 51824). IHS is continuing to seek feedback from the LGBT2S community by holding a series of public teleconferences. In these teleconferences, participants will be asked to comment on several key dimensions of the health needs of the AI/AN LGBT2S community, including but not limited to the following questions:
a. Are there effective models and best practices surrounding the health care of the LGBT2S community that should be considered for replication?
b. What are the specific measures that could be used to track progress in improving the health of LGBT2S persons?
c. How can IHS better engage with stakeholders around the implementation of improvements?
d. Are there gaps or disparities in existing IHS services offered to LGBT2S persons?
e. What additional information should the agency consider while developing plans to improve health care for the LGBT2S community?
The first public teleconference will be held on May 5, 2016 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only. Please see
Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this public teleconference may contact Lisa Neel, MPH, Program Coordinator, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 08N34A, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone 301-443-4305. (This is not a toll-free number.)
This meeting is open to the public. The virtual meeting is available via teleconference line and will accommodate 200 people. Join the meeting by calling the toll free phone number at 800-857-9744 and providing the public participant passcode number: 3618057. Participants should call and connect 15 minutes prior to the meeting in order for logistics to be set up. Call
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive grant applications for the Tribal Management Grant (TMG) program. This program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 450h(b)(2) and 25 U.S.C. 450h(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-638, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.228.
The TMG Program is a competitive grant program that is capacity building and developmental in nature and has been available for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations (T/TO) since shortly after the passage of the ISDEAA in 1975. It was established to assist T/TO to prepare for assuming all or part of existing IHS programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) and further develop and improve their health management capability. The TMG Program provides competitive grants to T/TO to establish goals and performance measures for current health programs; assess current management capacity to determine if new components are appropriate; analyze programs to determine if T/TO management is practicable; and develop infrastructure systems to manage or organize PFSAs.
The purpose of this IHS grant announcement is to announce the availability of the TMG Program to enhance and develop health management infrastructure and assist T/TO in assuming all or part of existing IHS PSFAs thro