| 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 through a Title I contract and assist established Title I contractors and Title V compactors to further develop and improve their management capability. In addition, TMGs are available to T/TO under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 450h(e) for (1) obtaining technical assistance from providers designated by the T/TO (including T/TO that operate mature contracts) for the purposes of program planning and evaluation, including the development of any management systems necessary for contract management and the development of cost allocation plans for indirect cost rates; and (2) planning, designing, monitoring, and evaluating Federal programs serving the T/TO, including Federal administrative functions.
Grant.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017Mi is approximately $2,412,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $50,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for new and competing continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Approximately 16-18 awards will be issued under this program announcement.
The project periods vary based on the project type selected. Project periods could run from one, two, or three years and will run consecutively from the earliest anticipated start date of September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017 for one year projects; September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2018 for two year projects; and September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2019 for three year projects. Please refer to “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” below for additional details. State the number of years for the project period and include the exact dates.
“Tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities. 25 U.S.C. 450b(l).
Tribal organizations must provide proof of non-profit status.
The TMG Program consists of four project types: (1) Feasibility study; (2)
1. FEASIBILITY STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $70,000/12 months)
The Feasibility Study must include a study of a specific IHS program or segment of a program to determine if Tribal management of the program is possible. The study shall present the planned approach, training, and resources required to assume Tribal management of the program. The study must include the following four components:
• Health needs and health care services assessments that identify existing health care services and delivery systems, program divisibility issues, health status indicators, unmet needs, volume projections, and demand analysis.
• Management analysis of existing management structures, proposed management structures, implementation plans and requirements, and personnel staffing requirements and recruitment barriers.
• Financial analysis of historical trends data, financial projections and new resource requirements for program management costs and analysis of potential revenues from Federal/non-Federal sources.
• Decision statement/report that incorporates findings, conclusions and recommendations; the presentation of the study and recommendations to the Tribal governing body for determination regarding whether Tribal assumption of program(s) is desirable or warranted.
2. PLANNING (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)
Planning projects entail a collection of data to establish goals and performance measures for the operation of current health programs or anticipated PFSAs under a Title I contract. Planning projects will specify the design of health programs and the management systems (including appropriate policies and procedures) to accomplish the health priorities of the T/TO. For example, planning projects could include the development of a Tribal Specific Health Plan or a Strategic Health Plan, etc. Please note that updated Healthy People information and Healthy People 2020 objectives are available in electronic format at the following Web site:
3. EVALUATION STUDY (Maximum funding/project period: $50,000/12 months)
The Evaluation Study must include a systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data for the purpose of determining the value of a program. The extent of the evaluation study could relate to the goals and objectives, policies and procedures, or programs regarding targeted groups. The evaluation study could also be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of a Tribal program operation (
4. HEALTH MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (Average funding/project period: $100,000/12 months; maximum funding/project period: $300,000/36 months)
The first year maximum funding level is limited to $150,000 for multi-year projects. The Health Management Structure component allows for implementation of systems to manage or organize PFSAs. Management structures include health department organizations, health boards, and financial management systems, including systems for accounting, personnel, third-party billing, medical records, management information systems, etc. This includes the design, improvement, and correction of management systems that address weaknesses identified through quality control measures, internal control reviews, and audit report findings under required financial audits and ISDEAA requirements.
For the minimum standards for the management systems used by Indian T/TO when carrying out self-determination contracts, please see 25 CFR part 900, Contracts Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Subpart F—“Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems,” §§ 900.35 through 900.60. For operational provisions applicable to carrying out self-governance compacts, please see 42 CFR part 137, Tribal Self-Governance, Subpart I—“Operational Provisions” §§ 137.160 through 137.220.
Please see Section IV “Application and Submission Information” for information on how to obtain a copy of the TMG application package.
To be eligible for this “New/Competing, Continuation Announcement,” an applicant must be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b:
i. An Indian Tribe, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b(e); or
ii. A Tribal organization, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 450b(l).
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
The following documentation is required:
A. An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include
An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution must be
B. Tribal organizations applying for technical assistance and/or training grants must submit documentation that the Tribal organization is applying upon the request of the Indian Tribe/Tribes it intends to serve.
C. Documentation for Priority I participation requires a copy of the
D. Documentation for Priority II participation requires a copy of the most current transmittal letter and Attachment A from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), National External Audit Review Center (NEAR). See “FUNDING PRIORITIES” below for more information. If an applicant is unable to locate a copy of the most recent transmittal letter or needs assistance with audit issues, information or technical assistance may be obtained by contacting the IHS, Office of Finance and Accounting, Division of Audit at (301) 443-1270, or the NEAR help line at (800) 732-0679 or (816) 426-7720. Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars in the footnotes. The financial statement must also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”
E. Documentation of Consortium participation—If an Indian Tribe submitting an application is a member of an eligible intertribal consortium, the Tribe must:
FUNDING PRIORITIES: The IHS has established the following funding priorities for TMG awards:
• PRIORITY I—Any Indian Tribe that has received Federal recognition (including restored, funded, or unfunded) within the past five years, specifically received during or after March 2011, will be considered Priority I.
• PRIORITY II—Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application for the sole purpose of addressing audit material weaknesses will be considered Priority II.
Priority II participation is only applicable to the Health Management Structure project type. For more information, see “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” in Section II.
• PRIORITY III—Eligible Direct Service and Title I Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation application or a new application will be considered Priority III.
• PRIORITY IV—Eligible Title V Self Governance Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations submitting a competing continuation or a new application will be considered Priority IV.
The funding of approved Priority I applicants will occur before the funding of approved Priority II applicants. Priority II applicants will be funded before approved Priority III applicants. Priority III applicants will be funded before Priority IV applicants. Funds will be distributed until depleted.
Audit finding means deficiencies which the auditor is required by 45 CFR 75.516, to report in the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Material weakness—“Statements on Auditing Standards 115” defines material weakness as a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Significant deficiency—Statements on Auditing Standards 115 defines significant deficiency as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
The audit findings are identified in Attachment A of the transmittal letter received from the HHS/OIG/NEAR. Please identify the material weaknesses to be addressed by underlining the item(s) listed on the Attachment A.
Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations not subject to Single Audit Act requirements must provide a financial statement identifying the Federal dollars received in the footnotes. The financial statement should also identify specific weaknesses/recommendations that will be addressed in the TMG proposal and that are related to 25 CFR part 900, subpart F—“Standards for Tribal and Tribal Organization Management Systems.”
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.
The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).
• Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).
○ Background information on the organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.
• Tribal resolution.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Position descriptions for key personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget Audit, as required by 45 CFR part 75, subpart F or other required Financial Audit (if applicable).
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.
A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 15 pages and must: Be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 8
Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 15 pages will be reviewed. The 15-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.
Section 1: Needs
Describe how the T/TO has determined the need to either enhance or develop its management capability to either assume PFSAs or not in the interest of self-determination. Note the progression of previous TMG projects/awards if applicable.
Section 1: Program Plans
Describe fully and clearly the direction the T/TO plans to take with the selected TMG project type in addressing their health management infrastructure including how the T/TO plans to demonstrate improved health and services to the community or communities it serves. Include proposed timelines.
Section 2: Program Evaluation
Describe fully and clearly the improvements that will be made by the T/TO that will impact their management capability or prepare them for future improvements to their organization that will allow them to manage their health care system and identify the anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribe.
Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.
Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health services. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.
Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.
Please identify and summarize recent major health related project activities of the work done during the project period.
B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable),
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant will be awarded per applicant.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
• The TMG may not be used to support recurring operational programs or to replace existing public and private resources. Funding received under a recurring Public Law 93-638 contract cannot be totally supplanted or totally replaced. Exception is allowed to charge a portion or percentage of salaries of existing staff positions involved in implementing the TMG grant, if applicable. However, this percentage of TMG funding must reflect supplementation of funding for the project and not supplantation of existing ISDEAA contract funds. Supplementation is “adding to a program” whereas supplantation is “taking the place of” funds. An entity cannot use the TMG funds to supplant the ISDEAA contract or recurring funding.
• Ineligible Project Activities—The inclusion of the following projects or activities in an application will render the application ineligible.
○ Planning and negotiating activities associated with the intent of a Tribe to enter the IHS Self-Governance Project. A separate grant program is administered by the IHS for this purpose. Prospective applicants interested in this program should contact Mr. Jeremy Marshall, Policy Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E05, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-7821, and request information concerning the “Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement Announcement” or the “Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Announcement.”
○ Projects related to water, sanitation, and waste management.
○ Projects that include direct patient care and/or equipment to provide those medical services to be used to establish or augment or continue direct patient clinical care. Medical equipment that is allowable under the Special Diabetes Program for Indians is not allowable under the TMG Program.
○ Projects that include recruitment efforts for direct patient care services.
○ Projects that include long-term care or provision of any direct services.
○ Projects that include tuition, fees, or stipends for certification or training of staff to provide direct services.
○ Projects that include pre-planning, design, and planning of construction for facilities, including activities relating to program justification documents.
○ Projects that propose more than one project type. Refer to Section II, “Award Information,” specifically “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” for more information. An example of a proposal with more than one project type that would be considered ineligible may include the creation of a strategic health plan (defined by TMG as a planning project type) and improving third-party billing structures (defined by TMG as a health management structure project type). Multi-year applications that include in the first year planning, evaluation, or feasibility activities with the remainder of the project years addressing management structure are also deemed ineligible.
○ Any Alaska Native Village that is neither a Title I nor a Title V organization and does not have the legal authority to contract services under 450(b) of the ISDEAA as it is affiliated with one of the Alaska health corporations as a consortium member and has all of its IHS funding for the Village administered through an Alaska health corporation, a Title V compactor, is not eligible for consideration under the TMG program.
Moreover, Congress has reenacted its moratorium in Alaska on new contracting under the ISDEAA with Alaska Native Tribes that do not already have contracts or compacts with the IHS under this Act. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Jan. 17, 2014), Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 343-44:
SEC. 424. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and until October 1, 2018, the Indian Health Service may not disburse funds for the provision of health care services pursuant to Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450
Consequently, Alaska Native Villages will not have any opportunity to enter into an ISDEAA contract with the IHS until this law lapses on October 1, 2018.
• Other Limitations—A current TMG recipient cannot be awarded a new, renewal, or competing continuation grant for any of the following reasons:
○ The grantee will be administering two TMGs at the same time or have overlapping project/budget periods;
○ The current project is not progressing in a satisfactory manner;
○ The current project is not in compliance with program and financial reporting requirements; or
○ The applicant has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt. No award shall be made until either:
The delinquent account is paid in full; or
A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, the applicant must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at:
• Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.
• If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to
• If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.
• Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) will notify the applicant that the application has been received.
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 15-page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-Year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
(1) Describe the T/TO's current health operation. Include what programs and services are currently provided (
(2) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Include the number of eligible IHS beneficiaries who currently use the services.
(3) Describe the geographic location of the proposed project including any geographic barriers to the health care users in the area to be served.
(4) Identify all TMGs received since FY 2011, dates of funding and a summary of project accomplishments. State how previous TMG funds facilitated the progression of health development relative to the current proposed project. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)
(5) Identify the eligible project type and priority group of the applicant.
(6) Explain the need/reason for the proposed project by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed project. Explain how these gaps/weaknesses have been assessed.
(7) If the proposed project includes information technology (
(8) Describe the effect of the proposed project on current programs (
(9) Address how the proposed project relates to the purpose of the TMG Program by addressing the appropriate description that follows:
• Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title I contractor. Address if the self-determination contract is a master contract of several programs or if individual contracts are used for each program. Include information regarding whether or not the Tribe participates in a consortium contract (
• Identify if the T/TO is not a Title I organization. Address how the proposed project will enhance the organization's management capabilities, what programs and services the organization is currently seeking to contract and an anticipated date for contract.
• Identify if the T/TO is an IHS Title V compactor. Address when the T/TO entered into the compact and how the proposed project will further enhance the organization's management capabilities.
(1) Identify the proposed project objective(s) addressing the following:
• Objectives must be measureable and (if applicable) quantifiable.
• Objectives must be results oriented.
• Objectives must be time-limited.
Example: By installing new third-party billing software, the Tribe will increase the number of bills processed by 15 percent at the end of 12 months.
(2) Address how the proposed project will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes for each proposed project objective. Also address what tangible products are expected from the project (
(3) Address the extent to which the proposed project will build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the need(s) of the target population.
(4) Submit a work plan in the Appendix which includes the following information:
• Provide the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing the proposed project objective(s).
• Identify who will perform the action steps.
• Identify who will supervise the action steps taken.
• Identify what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project.
• Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed project and at the end of the proposed project.
• Include any training that will take place during the proposed project and who will be providing and attending the training.
• Include evaluation activities planned in the work plans.
(5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):
• Educational requirements.
• Desired qualifications and work experience.
• Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.
If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.
(6) Describe what updates (
Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progression and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.
Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and processes. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.
(1) For outcome evaluation, describe:
• What will the criteria be for determining success of each objective?
• What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met?
• At what intervals will data be collected?
• Who will collect the data and their qualifications?
• How will the data be analyzed?
• How will the results be used?
(2) For process evaluation, describe:
• How will the project be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements?
• Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications?
• How will ongoing monitoring be used to improve the project?
• Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.
• How will the organization document what is learned throughout the project period?
(3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.
(4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the Tribe that is expected to result from this project. An example of this might be the ability of the Tribe to expand preventive health services because of increased billing and third party payments.
This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plan.
(1) Describe the organizational structure of the T/TO beyond health care activities, if applicable.
(2) Provide information regarding plans to obtain management systems if the T/TO does not have an established management system currently in place that complies with 25 CFR part 900, subpart F, “Standards for Tribal or Tribal Organization Management Systems.” State if management systems are already in place and how long the systems have been in place.
(3) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance as well as other grants and projects successfully completed.
(4) Describe what equipment (
(5) List key personnel who will work on the project. Include all titles of key personnel in the work plan. In the Appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must
(6) Address how the T/TO will sustain the position(s) after the grant expires if the project requires additional personnel (
(7) If the personnel are to be only partially funded by this grant, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to the project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.
(1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested.
(2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.
(3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each categorical budget line item is necessary and relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (
For projects requiring a second and/or third year, include only Year 2 and/or Year 3 narrative sections (objectives, evaluation components and work plan) that differ from those in Year 1. For every project year, include a full budget justification and a detailed, itemized categorical budget showing calculation methodologies for each item. The same weights and criteria which are used to evaluate a one-year project or the first year of a multi-year project will be applied when evaluating the second and third years of a multi-year application. A weak second and/or third year submission could negatively impact the overall score of an application and result in elimination of the proposed second and/or third years with a recommendation for only a one-year award.
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval (60 points) and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the ODSCT within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Grants are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Uniform Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at:
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at:
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see
Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the Indian Health Service.
Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site:
The Indian Health Service (IHS), is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the Indian Health Service must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery,or gratutity violations potentially affecting the federal award.
Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the Indian Health Service and to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) all information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113
Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
(Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line.)
Ofc: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201.
URL:
(Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line.)
Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email:
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Michelle Eagle Hawk, Deputy Director, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E17, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, Email:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Mr. Pallop Chareonvootitam, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Management Services, Division of Grants Management, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-2195, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
The PHS strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Pub. L. 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on May 3, 2016, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.
The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the Acting SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C § 552b(c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at
Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment National Advisory Council.
Date/Time/Type: May 3, 2016, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT, Closed.
Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Contact: Tracy Goss, Designated Federal Officer, CSAT National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-0759, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4266-DR), dated March 19, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 19, 2016.
Erath, Gregg, Harrison, Hood, Marion, and Parker Counties for Individual Assistance and assistance for emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4266-DR), dated March 19, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated March 19, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Texas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding beginning on March 7, 2016, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Texas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Jasper, Newton, and Orange Counties for Individual Assistance.
Jasper, Newton, and Orange Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All areas within the State of Texas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of extension of time.
This notice advises the public that HUD received a request from Clayton Homes (Clayton) for an extension of time to fully implement its plan to correct affected homes without implementation of a Plan of Notification. Certain manufactured homes built and sold by Clayton contained certain Nortek furnace models with the potential for incorrect wiring of circuit breakers used for over-current protection of the furnace. After reviewing Clayton's request, HUD determined that Clayton has shown good cause and granted its request for an extension. The requested extension is granted until May 12, 2016.
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible to notify purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.
HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I) implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are a registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or HUD. Pursuant to § 3282.407(c), manufacturers may request a waiver of the notification requirements if all affected homes have been identified and the manufacturer agrees to correct all affected homes within a specific time from the approval date.
Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of a previously established deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and the Secretary of HUD decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that HUD publish notice of the extension in the
On December 31, 2015, Clayton
Clayton, by letter dated March 21, 2016, requested an extension of 60 days to complete the correction process. This notice advises that HUD on March 21, 2016, concluded that Clayton has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest, and granted the requested extension until May 12, 2016. This extension permits Clayton to continue its good faith efforts to correct affected homes at no cost to affected homeowners.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of extension of time.
This notice advises the public that HUD received a request from Cavco Industries (Cavco) for an extension of time to fully implement its plan to
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible to notify purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.
HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I) implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are a registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or HUD. Pursuant to § 3282.407(c), manufacturers may request a waiver of the notification requirements if all affected homes have been identified and the manufacturer agrees to correct all affected homes within a specific time from the approval date.
Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of a previously established deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and the Secretary of HUD decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that HUD publish notice of the extension in the
On December 31, 2015, Cavco
Cavco, by letter dated March 7, 2016, requested an extension of 120 days to complete the correction process. This notice advises that HUD on March 7, 2016, concluded that Cavco has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest, and granted the requested extension until July 4, 2016. This extension permits Cavco to continue its good faith efforts to correct affected homes at no cost to affected homeowners.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Glennallen Field Office is considering a request by SEND North (SEND) to purchase the Federal Government's reversionary interest at current Fair Market Value of $210,000 for up to 210 acres of partially developed lands established under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) in Glennallen, Alaska. The BLM is also considering the renunciation of reversionary interest for an associated 2.5-acre patented parcel of land, authorized under the R&PP Act in Glennallen, Alaska, which was used as a medical sewage lagoon by SEND.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed sale and renunciation of the lands until May 9, 2016.
Send written comments to the Field Manager, Glennallen Field Office, P.O. Box 147, Glennallen, AK 99588.
Joseph Hart, Realty Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Glennallen Field Office at 907-822-3217. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
In 1961, a 210-acre parcel of Federal land was
The purpose for which the lands can be used is restricted by a reversionary clause in the patents, which returns title to the United States if the tracts are used for other purposes not provided for in the patents. The purpose of the direct sale is to dispose of the reversionary interests in the patented lands which represent certain restrictions and conditions that prevent SEND from using the land for other purposes. The purpose of the renunciation is to release the United States from liability for the sewage treatment lagoon. The parcels proposed for direct sale and renunciation of the reversionary interests are located in the business center of Glennallen, Alaska and consist of two surveyed parcels containing approximately 210 acres and 2.5 acres and are described as:
The areas described aggregate 212.50 acres.
The purpose of the direct sale and renunciation of the reversionary interests is so the lands, patented to SEND, can be sold, transferred, and/or used for other purposes. The R&PP Act reversionary clause in the patents requires the patents be sold only to those qualified under the R&PP Act and is used only for the purposes allowed under the R&PP Act, or the patented land will revert back to the United States. These parcels of land are located in the business center of Glennallen, which is in a rural part of Alaska. SEND has experienced difficulty in attracting potential buyers because of the reversionary clause in the patents. SEND cannot find a buyer who is interested in the land and who qualifies under the R&PP Act. A direct sale and renunciation of the reversionary interests will allow SEND to sell or transfer the properties to any citizen or organization in the United States and to use the lands for any purpose, without the threat of a reversion of the title for breach of patent conditions. This sale and renunciation would reduce the Federal Government's and the BLM's liability in relation to both parcels and allow for the merger of property interests to occur.
The non-competitive, direct sale and release are consistent with the East Alaska Resource Management Plan approved in September 2007. Authority for the sale and release of the reversionary interests is in conformance with Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976, as amended, and Section 203, whereas the Secretary determines that the sale of the parcel meets the following disposal criteria: Such tract is difficult and uneconomic to manage because of its location or other characteristics, such as the subject's history of use, current level of development, and is neither required nor suitable for management by another Federal department or agency. The lands are being offered for sale and renunciation using direct sale procedures pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-3. The renunciation of the reversionary interest in the 2.5 acres would take place pursuant to 43 CFR 2743.4, as they meet the criteria identified in National BLM Handbook H-2740-1, Chapter X: Solid Waste or Other Purposes That May Include the Disposal, Placement, or Release of a Hazardous Substance. The reversionary interest in this land will be offered by direct sale to SEND at the Fair Market Value (FMV) of $210,000 according to an appraisal report for the 210-acre parcel located in the NE
Upon publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of this action, the identified parcels would no longer be subject to having title revert to the Federal Government under the R&PP Act as described in patents 1221491 and 1232741. All other terms and conditions of these patents will apply. The direct sale and renunciation of the reversionary interest of these lands will be made subject to the provisions of FLPMA, the applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, all valid existing rights, and the following reservations:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and
2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
3. Valid existing rights.
The purchaser, by, respectively, purchasing the reversionary interests, and accepting the renunciation of the interests of the United States agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States, its officers, agents or employees harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind arising from the past, present or future acts or omissions of the purchaser, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or third-party arising out of or in connection with the purchaser's acceptance of the aforementioned release or purchaser's use and/or occupancy of the land involved resulting in: (1) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now, or in the future become, applicable to real property; (2) judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) Cost, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property, and other interests of the United States; (5) Other activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used, or otherwise disposed of on the land involved, and any cleanup, response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (6) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. Patentee shall stipulate that it will be solely responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental and regulatory provisions, throughout the life of the facilities, including any closure and/or post-closure requirements that may be imposed with respect to any physical plant and/or facilities upon the land involved under any Federal, State, or local environmental laws or regulatory provisions. This covenant shall be
No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States in connection with the sale or release of the reversionary interest. The documentation for land use conformance, National Environmental Policy Act procedures, a map, and the approved appraisal report covering the proposed sale, are available for review at the BLM Glennallen Field Office at the address listed above.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the non-competitive, direct sale and renunciation of the reversionary interests and conveyance of reversionary interests, and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision for the direct sale or renunciation of these reversionary interests.
Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail to the Field Manager, BLM Glennallen Field Office, will be considered properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone comments will not be considered properly filed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Alaska State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify these realty actions. In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective May 9, 2016. The reversionary interests will not be offered for sale or renounced until after the decision becomes effective.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined and found suitable for classification under provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act, and for lease and/or subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, approximately 12.5 acres of public land in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada. The Clark County School District proposes to use the land for an elementary school in the southwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification of the land for lease and/or subsequent conveyance of the land, and the environmental assessment (EA), until May 23, 2016.
Send written comments to the BLM Las Vegas Field Manager, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130, by FAX at 702-515-5110, or email:
Lisa Moody, 702-515-5084, or
The parcel of public land is located along on the northwest corner of West Torino Avenue and South Juliano Road, and is legally described as:
The area described contains 12.5 acres, more or less, in Clark County.
In accordance with the R&PP Act, the Clark County School District has filed an application to develop the above described land for an elementary school in the southwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley. Related facilities include one and/or two story building with classrooms, sports field(s), playgrounds, parking lot, and related ancillary structures. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plan is in case file N-90372, which is located in the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address. Environmental documents associated with this proposed action are available for review at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, and on the Web at:
The Clark County School District is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act.
The lease and/or subsequent conveyance of the public land shall be subject to valid existing rights. Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulations, prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way within the lease area may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable.
The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease and/or subsequent conveyance is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The Clark County School District has not applied for more than the 640-acre limitation for public purpose uses in a year and has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43 CFR 2741.4(b).
The lease and/or subsequent conveyance, if and when issued, will be subject to valid existing rights and the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following terms, conditions, and reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Reservation in Patents Right-of-Way for Ditches or Canals Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe;
3. Right-of-way N-59041 for flood control purposes granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
4. Right-of-way N-74516 for flood control purposes granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
5. Right-of-way N-74977 for roadway purposes granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
6. Right-of-way N-78335 for roadway purposes granted to Clark County, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
7. Right-of-way N-83273 for sanitary sewer purposes granted to the Clark County Water Reclamation District, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
8. Right-of-way N-84230 for a gas pipeline granted to Southwest Gas Corporation, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act of October 21, 1973 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
9. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments on the suitability of the land for an elementary school in the Las Vegas Valley. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs. Interested parties may also submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease and/or convey under the R&PP Act.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on June 6, 2016.
The lands will not be available for lease and/or subsequent conveyance until after the decision becomes effective.
43 CFR 2741.5(h).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dakotas Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Dakotas Resource Advisory Council meeting will be held on April 28, 2016 in Bowman, North Dakota. The meeting place and time will be announced in a news release.
Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Eastern Montana/Dakotas District, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana, 59301; (406) 233-2831;
The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in North and South Dakota. At this meeting the agenda will include: Election of chairs for 2016, an update on Central Montana District grazing decisions, Fort Meade trails and weeds projects, a coal program update, discussion on BLM inholdings related to the Wharf Mine, an Eastern Montana/Dakotas District report, North Dakota and South Dakota Field Office manager reports, individual RAC member reports and other issues the council may raise. All meetings are open to the public and the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as provided above.
43 CFR 1784.4-2
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of WCM Industries, Inc. on April 4, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain overflow and drain assemblies for bathtubs and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Federal Process Corporation of Cleveland, OH; J & B Products, Inc. of South Bend, IN; Bridging Partners Corporation of Taiwan; Keeney Manufacturing Co., of Newington, CT; Better Enterprise Co. Ltd., of Taiwan; and Everflow Industrial Supply Corporation of Taiwan. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3134”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10 and 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-558 and 731-TA-1316 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of 1 hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Edward Petronzio (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before May 9, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before May 9, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Registe Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearing on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 12, 2016, Stepan Company, Natural Products Dept., 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607 applied to be registered as an importer of coca leaves (9040), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in bulk for the manufacture of controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated December 9, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed substances for analytical research, testing, and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
The company plans to import an intermediate form of tapentadol (9780) to bulk manufacture tapentadol for distribution to its customers. Placement of these (this) drug code (s) onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before June 6, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 10, 2015, Navinta, LLC, 1499 Lower Ferry Road, Ewing, New Jersey 08618-1414 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans initially to manufacture API quantities of the listed controlled substances for validation purposes and FDA approval, then eventually upon FDA approval to produce commercial size batches for distribution to dosage form manufacturers.
Notice of registration.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated December 4, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of registration.
VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated November 19, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 9, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jennifer Truman or Rachel Morgan, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On March 30, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed stipulation to modify a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the lawsuit entitled
The original Consent Decree resolved alleged violations of the New Source Review and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7470-92 and 7661a-7661f, at two coal-fired power plants owned and operated by Wisconsin Public Service Corp (“Defendant”): the Weston plant located in Marathon County, Wisconsin, and the Pulliam plant located in Brown County, Wisconsin. The proposed modifications would: (1) Facilitate the Defendant's decision to convert a unit at the Weston plant from burning coal to natural gas, thereby reducing particulate matter (“PM”) emissions such that the operation of certain PM controls at that unit is no longer necessary to achieve the PM reductions secured by the Decree; (2) replace a hydroelectric environmental mitigation project that was deemed unworkable with a new land acquisition and restoration project and an expansion of an existing wood stove replacement program; and (3) revise and update certain administrative notice and certification requirements.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed modifications to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed stipulation to modify the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 6, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Carolyn King, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 4473 (5300.9.)
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Individuals or households.
Other (if applicable): Business or other for-profit.
Abstract: The form allows for Federal firearms licensees to determine the eligibility of persons purchasing firearms. It also alerts buyers to certain restrictions on the receipt and possession of firearms.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Friday, April 22, 2016.
Meeting Room C205, University of Arizona Libraries, Special Collections, 1510 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721.
This meeting of the Board of Trustees will be open to the public.
(1) Welcome & Tour of Special Collections for Trustees and Staff; (2) Call to Order & Chair's Remarks; (3) Executive Director's Remarks; (4) Consent Agenda Approval (Program Reports submitted for the Education Programs, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy-Native Nations Institute-Udall Archives); (5) Financial and Internal Controls Update; (6) Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy (NNI) Research Staff Presentations; and (7) NNI Program Overview.
Philip J. Lemanski, Executive Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901-8500.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests recommendations for membership on its scientific and technical federal advisory committees. Recommendations should consist of the submitting person's or organization's name and affiliation, the name of the recommended individual, the recommended individual's curriculum vita, an expression of the individual's interest in serving, and the following recommended individual's contact information: employment address, telephone number, FAX number, and email address. Self recommendations are accepted. If you would like to make a membership recommendation for any of the NSF scientific and technical Federal advisory committees, please send your recommendation to the appropriate committee contact person listed in the chart below.
The mailing address for the National Science Foundation is 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Web links to individual committee information may be found on the NSF Web site: NSF Advisory Committees.
Each Directorate and Office has an external advisory committee that typically meets twice a year to review and provide advice on program management; discusses current issues; and reviews and provides advice on the impact of policies, programs, and activities in the disciplines and fields encompassed by the Directorate or Office. In addition to Directorate and Office advisory committees, NSF has several committees that provide advice and recommendations on specific topics including: astronomy and astrophysics; environmental research and education; equal opportunities in science and engineering; advanced cyberinfrastructure; international science and engineering; and business and operations.
A primary consideration when formulating committee membership is recognized knowledge, expertise, or demonstrated ability.
The chart below is a listing of the committees seeking recommendations for membership. Recommendations should be sent to the contact person identified below. The chart contains web addresses where additional information about individual committees are available.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 31, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 31, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 31, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 31, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's access services fees at Rules 7015(b) and (g) to increase the port fees charged to members and non-members for ports used to enter orders into Exchange systems, in connection with the use of the FIX, RASH and OUCH trading telecommunication protocols. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on April 1, 2016.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 7015(b) and (g) to increase the monthly fees it charges for ports used to enter orders in the Nasdaq Market Center for the trading of equities, in connection with the use of the FIX, RASH, and OUCH trading telecommunication protocols. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the fee assessed for a FIX Trading Port from $550/port/month to $575/port/month, to increase the fee assessed for a RASH port from $550/port/month to $575/port/month, and to increase the fee assessed for an OUCH port from $550/port/month to $575/port/month.
The Exchange is proposing to increase charges assessed for these connectivity options in light of a recent upgrade to the hardware supporting the ports to FPGA technology.
The Exchange is offering new technology in order to keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs as new technologies emerge and products continue to develop and change. The Exchange is increasing the subscription fees for the upgraded ports to offset the costs associated with offering the new hardware, which include procuring, shipping, installing, and maintaining the new equipment and codebase.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange continuously strives to offer members state of the art technology to enhance their trading experience and thereby enhance the national market system. Incremental enhancements such as the advent of FPGA technology has [sic] helped make the U.S. markets the deepest, most liquid markets in the world. The FPGA hardware applied to the trading ports improves their predictability. Thus, the new hardware further perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed increased fees are reasonable because they are based on the costs associated with purchasing hardware (capital expenditures) and supporting and maintaining the infrastructure (operating expenditures) for the FPGA enhancement. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees apply equally to all users of the FPGA-enhanced ports and the fees applied in direct proportion to the number of ports used by each member.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive in that the enhancements improve the competitiveness of the Exchange and the overall quality of the national market system. If, as the Exchange believes, the FPGA enhancement provides the Exchange a competitive advantage, other exchanges will quickly respond by enhancing their own markets in the same way. Such innovation and imitation is the very
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 4, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and
The investment objective of the Fund is to seek to maximize current income with a dollar-weighted average effective duration between one and three years. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund intends to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Securities, which are defined as the following instruments: Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored corporations; inflation protected public obligations of the U.S. Treasury; securities issued or guaranteed by state or local governments or their agencies or instrumentalities;
While the Adviser and Sub-Adviser, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of the Fund's net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in the instruments described above, the Adviser and Sub-Adviser may invest up to 20% of the Fund's net assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral. The Fund may also enter into reverse repurchase agreements.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded
The Fund may invest in convertible securities.
The Fund may lend its portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed 33
In addition to repurchase agreements, the Fund may invest in short-term instruments, including money market instruments, cash, and cash equivalents, on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons.
The Fund may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot or forward basis.
The Fund may invest in inverse floating rate debt instruments.
In addition to ETPs that invest in Fixed Income Securities, the Fund may also invest in the securities of non-exchange traded investment companies, including affiliated funds and money market funds, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.
The Fund may invest in the securities of real estate investment trusts.
The Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in the following derivatives: Exchange-traded futures on Treasuries or Eurodollars; U.S. exchange-traded or OTC put and call options contracts, and OTC or exchange-traded swap agreements on Fixed Income Securities and/or derivatives on indices based on Fixed Income Securities (including interest rate swaps, total return swaps, excess return swaps, and credit default swaps).
The Fund may also invest in Restricted Securities.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Restricted Securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under the Internal Revenue Code.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to seek to achieve leveraged or inverse leveraged returns.
Under normal circumstances, the combined total of corporate, sovereign, non-agency, and all other debt rated below investment grade will not exceed 40% of the Fund's net assets.
The Fund may invest up to 15% of its net assets in securities denominated in foreign currencies, and may invest beyond this limit in U.S. dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers. The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
Quotation and last-sale information for the Shares will be available on the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”). With respect to the Fund, an estimated value, defined in BATS Rule 14.11(i)(3)(C) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” which reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BATS Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures, which are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares.
(4) The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying exchange traded investment companies, equity securities, futures, and options via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. The Exchange can also access municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares through the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access.
(5) All of the exchange-listed assets will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(6) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (i) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) BATS Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (iii) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (iv) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening and After Hours Trading Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (v) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (vi) trading information.
(7) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
(8) The Fund will not invest more than 20% of its net assets in the aggregate in non-agency ABS.
(9) Under normal circumstances, the Fund will generally seek to invest in corporate bond issuances that have at least $100,000,000 par amount outstanding in developed countries and at least $200,000,000 par amount outstanding in emerging market countries. Corporate bonds that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the weight of the Fund's corporate bonds will have a minimum original principal outstanding of $100 million or more.
(10) Under normal circumstances, the combined total of corporate, sovereign, non-agency, and all other debt rated below investment grade will not exceed 40% of the Fund's net assets.
(11) The Fund will not invest more than 15% of its net assets in securities denominated in foreign currencies, and will not invest more than 20% of its net assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries.
(12) No more 20% of the Fund's net assets will be invested in junior bank loans.
(13) While the Fund may invest in inverse ETPs, the Fund will not invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged ETPs.
(14) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in Amendment No. 2. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of BATS Rule 14.11(i) to be initially and continuously listed and traded on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 2 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including under section 7045(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K, Pub. L. 114-113), I hereby certify that the Government of Haiti is taking effective steps to:
• Hold free and fair parliamentary elections and seat a new Haitian parliament;
• Strengthen the rule of law in Haiti, including by selecting judges in a transparent manner; respect the independence of the judiciary; and improve governance by implementing reforms to increase transparency and accountability;
• Combat corruption, including by implementing the anti-corruption law enacted in 2014 and prosecuting corrupt officials; and
• Increase government revenues, including by implementing tax reforms, and increase expenditures on public services.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 91 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0325; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2013-0174], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 91 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 91 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of March and are discussed below.
As of March 2, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (70 FR 71884; 71
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0325; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0169; FMCSA-2013-0170. Their exemptions are effective as of March 2, 2016 and will expire on March 2, 2018.
As of March 5, 2016 and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 6829; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 62897; 73 FR 8392; 74 FR 64124; 75 FR 8184; 77 FR 7233; 79 FR 10602):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-27897. Their exemptions are effective as of March 5, 2016 and will expire on March 5, 2018.
As of March 7, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 3552; 77 FR 13691; 79 FR 12565):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0365. Their exemptions are effective as of March 7, 2016 and will expire on March 7, 2018.
As of March 13, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 20 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 1908; 79 FR 14333):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0174. Their exemptions are effective as of March 13, 2016 and will expire on March 13, 2018.
As of March 15, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 70 FR 7545; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 13450; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 73 FR 9158; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 64124; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 1451):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0365. Their exemptions are effective as of March 15, 2016 and will expire on March 15, 2018.
As of March 23, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 10471; 67 FR 19798; 69 FR 26206; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 17117; 79 FR 13085):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2011-0366. Their exemptions are effective as of March 23, 2016 and will expire on March 23, 2018.
As of March 31, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 71 FR 6829; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 16950; 75 FR 8184; 75 FR 9477; 77 FR 7723; 77 FR 13689; 79 FR 14331):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2007-0071. Their exemptions are effective as of March 31, 2016 and will expire on March 31, 2018.
Each of the 91 applicants listed in the groups above has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by May 9, 2016.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 91 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 87 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 87 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 87 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of April and are discussed below.
As of April 12, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (68 FR 61857; 68 FR 75715; 71 FR 644; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 73 FR 8392; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 60021; 75 FR 8184; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 70210; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 73769; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 22061; 78 FR 66099; 78 FR 67455; 79 FR 2248; 79 FR 4805; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14332; 79 FR 18390):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2013-0170. Their exemptions are effective as of April 12, 2016 and will expire on April 12, 2018.
As of April 14, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 40404; 64 FR 54948; 64 FR 66962; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251; 66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 61860; 68 FR 69432; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 17267; 69 FR 8260; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6825; 71
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2009-0321. Their exemptions are effective as of April 14, 2016 and will expire on April 14, 2018.
As of April 16, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following individual, Glen A. Schroeder (SD), has satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 10611; 79 FR 22003).
The driver was included in the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002. The exemption is effective as of April 16, 2016 and will expire on April 16, 2018.
As of April 17, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 19749; 77 FR 22838; 79 FR 15794):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0378. Their exemptions are effective as of April 17, 2016 and will expire on April 17, 2018.
As of April 18, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10610; 79 FR 10611; 79 FR 22003):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002. Their exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2016 and will expire on April 18, 2018.
As of April 23, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 10471; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 19611; 71 FR 6825; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 19604; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 72 FR 71993; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9478; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 20881; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 22059):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0324. Their exemptions are effective as of April 23, 2016 and will expire on April 23, 2018.
As of April 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (75 FR 9480; 75 FR 22176; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17108; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR 17643):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2011-0365. Their exemptions are effective as of April 27, 2016 and will expire on April 27, 2018.
Each of the 87 applicants listed in the groups above has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by May 9, 2016.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0033. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FISH MASTER is: Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: Recreation Coastwise/Sport Fishing Geographic Region: “Florida.”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0033 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0032. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel REEL OBSESSION is:
Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: Use of vessel will be for charter sport fishing
Geographic Region: Wisconsin
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0032 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0038. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel AL VENTO is: Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: “For charters up to 12 passengers in protected waters on the Hudson River in New York.” Geographic Region: “New York, and New Jersey”.
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0038 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0035. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel INSULAE is:
INTENDED COMMERCIAL USE OF VESSEL: Charter/6-pack.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: “Wisconsin”.
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0035 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The purpose of the collection is to conduct alumni survey to document student perceptions about education received at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The results from the survey will not be used for any type of forecasting or projecting. The results will be tabulated and documented as indirect evidence for accreditation purposes.
Written comments should be submitted by June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2016-0030] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dr. David Palmer, (516) 726-5707, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY 11024.
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0036. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TUNA HELPER is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0036 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0034. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LIL BEAR is:
Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: “Day charter”
Geographic Region: “California”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0034 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2016-0037. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel JUBILANT is: Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: “Private Vessel Charters” Geographic Region: “: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (excluding waters in Southeastern Alaska and waters north of a line between Gore Point to Cape Suckling [including the North Gulf Coast and Prince William Sound]).”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0037 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2016.
0031. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel KARINA JEAN is:
Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: “Private Vessel Charters, Passengers Only.”
Geographic Region: “Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (excluding waters in Southeastern Alaska and waters north of a line between Gore Point to Cape Suckling [including the North Gulf Coast and Prince William Sound]).”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2016-0031 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Safety advisory notice.
PHMSA is issuing this safety advisory notice to inform persons engaged in the transport of lithium batteries in commerce of recent actions taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to enhance the safe transport of lithium batteries by air.
Kevin A. Leary, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone: (202) 366-8553.
This safety advisory notice is to inform persons engaged in the transport of lithium batteries in commerce of recent actions taken by the ICAO to enhance the safe transport of lithium batteries by air. According to the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Association (ICCAIA), Boeing, and other aircraft manufacturers, the fire suppression capabilities of an aircraft may be exceeded in a situation where heat and flames generated from thermal runaway in a single package of lithium ion batteries spreads to adjacent packages, potentially leading to a catastrophic loss of the aircraft because of a fire that cannot be contained or suppressed.
Testing by the Federal Aviation Administration's William J. Hughes Technical Center (FAA Tech Center) supports the ICCAIA's and aircraft manufacturers' assessments.
• The potential for propagation of thermal runaway between cells or batteries in a package and between adjacent packages of batteries;
• The potential for uncontrolled lithium battery fires to overwhelm the capability of existing aircraft cargo fire protection systems, leading to a catastrophic failure of the airframe; and
• The potential for venting of combustible gases from lithium ion cells in thermal runaway, which could collect in an enclosed environment and cause an explosion even in the presence of a suppression agent.
Specifically, test data from the FAA Tech Center demonstrates that: (1) The ignition of the unburned flammable gases associated with a lithium cell or battery fire could lead to a catastrophic explosion; (2) the current design of the Halon 1301 fire suppression system in a Class C cargo compartment in passenger airplanes is incapable of preventing such an explosion; and (3) the ignition of a mixture of flammable gases could produce an over pressure, which would dislodge pressure relief panels, allow leakage of Halon from the associated cargo compartment, and compromise the ability of fire suppression systems to function as intended. As a result, smoke and fire can spread to adjacent compartments and potentially compromise the entire aircraft.
Based on this information and in conjunction with recommendations developed at the ICAO Multidisciplinary Lithium Battery Transport Coordination Meeting(s), the ICAO amended the 2015-2016 edition of the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI) concerning the transport of lithium ion cells and batteries. These amendments, effective April 1, 2016, include:
• A prohibition on the transport of lithium ion cells and batteries as cargo aboard passenger carrying aircraft (this prohibition applies to lithium cells and batteries (UN3480) not contained in or packed with equipment when transported as cargo and does not include batteries contained in personal electronic devices carried by passengers or crew);
• A requirement for lithium ion cells and batteries to be shipped at a state of charge of no more than 30 percent of their rated capacity on cargo aircraft (forbidden on passenger); and
• A limit on the number of packages of both lithium ion and lithium metal batteries that may be offered for transportation on cargo aircraft under current provisions for small cells and batteries to not more than one package per consignment or overpack.
Representatives from the FAA and PHMSA participate in meetings of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel—the
For additional information see:
•
•
•
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing updated identifying information for one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13664, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan,” who was previously designated and added to OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective April 4, 2016.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On April 4, 2016, OFAC updated the identifying information for one previously designated individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13664. The updated identifying information for the individual is as follows:
JOK RIAK, Gabriel (a.k.a. JOK, Gabriel; a.k.a. MAKOL, Gabriel Jok Riak; a.k.a. MAKOL, Jok Riak; a.k.a. RIAK, Jock; a.k.a. RIAK, Jok), Wau, Western Bahr El Ghazal State, South Sudan; Unity State, South Sudan; DOB 1966; POB Bor, South Sudan; alt. POB Bor, Sudan; nationality South Sudan; Lieutenant General; Sector One Commander (individual) [SOUTH SUDAN].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of seven entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182). Additionally, OFAC is publishing additions to the identifying information for five individuals and one entity previously designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
The designations by the Acting Director of OFAC of the seven entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act are effective on April 4, 2016.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220 Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On April 4, 2016, the Acting Director of OFAC designated the following seven entities whose property and interests in
1. AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L., Naciones Unidas Numero 6885-22, Colonia Jardines del Tule, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 60606 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Jeniffer Beaney CAMACHO CAZARES, Diana Maria SANCHEZ CARLON, and/or Silvia Romina SANCHEZ CARLON and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
2. AGRICOLA TAVO S.P.R. DE R.L. (a.k.a. AGRICULTURA TAVO S.P.R. DE R.L.), Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 59574 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being controlled or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Diana Maria SANCHEZ CARLON and/or Silvia Romina SANCHEZ CARLON and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
3. ASESORES TURISTICOS S.A. DE C.V., Dr. Jose Maria Vertiz 646, Col. Narvarte, Mexico, DF 03010, Mexico; R.F.C. ATU8707108U5 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Abigael GONZALEZ VALENCIA and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
4. DESARROLLO AGRICOLA ORGANICO S.P.R. DE R.L. (a.k.a. DESARROLLO AGRICULTURA ORGANICO, S.P.R. DE R.L.), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 61497 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being controlled or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Diana Maria SANCHEZ CARLON and/or Silvia Romina SANCHEZ CARLON and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
5. DESARROLLO AGRICOLA VERDE DE SAYULA S.P.R. DE R.L. (a.k.a. DESARROLLO AGRICULTURA VERDE DE SAYULA, S.P.R. DE R.L.), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 61803 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being controlled or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Diana Maria SANCHEZ CARLON and/or Silvia Romina SANCHEZ CARLON and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
6. STATUS ADMINISTRATIVO S. DE R.L. (a.k.a. STATUS ADMINISTRATIVO S. DE R.L. DE C.V.), Sao Paulo 2435, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44630, Mexico; Carretera A Barra De Navidad, Tomatlan, Jalisco 48460, Mexico; Playon de Mismaloya S/N Cruz de Loreto, Tomatlan Costalegre, Jalisco C.P. 48460, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 53243 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated for being controlled or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Fernando TORRES GONZALEZ and therefore meets the statutory criteria for designation pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3).
7. STEP LATINAMEDICA S.A. DE C.V., Av. Americas 1501, Piso 20 Punto Sao Paulo, Col. Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco C.P. 44630, Mexico; Jose Maria Coss 1522-B, Col. Miraflores, Guadalajara, Jalisco C.P. 44260, Mexico; Web site
Additionally, OFAC is publishing additions to the identifying information for the following individuals and entity previously designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jeniffer Beaney (a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jennifer Beaney; a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZAREZ, Jeniffer Beaney), Sendero De Los Olmos 110, Zapopan, Jalisco 45129, Mexico; 4850 ch de la Cote-Saint-Luc, Montreal, Quebec H3W 2H2, Canada; DOB 01 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; C.U.R.P. CACJ790201MSLMZN03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.).
2. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Abigael (a.k.a. GOMEZ FLORES, Luis Angel; a.k.a. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Abigail; a.k.a. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Luis Angel; a.k.a. TAK TOLEDO, Jonathan Paul; a.k.a. TAK TOLEDO, Paul Jonathan), Paseo Royal Country 5395-31, Fraccionamiento Royal Country, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 18 Oct 1972; alt. DOB 28 Oct 1979; POB Aguililla, Michoacan, Mexico; alt. POB Apatzingan, Michoacan, Mexico; alt. POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. GOVA721018HMNNLB07 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. GOFL721018HJCMLS02 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. GOVL721018HMNNLS08 (Mexico); Passport JX755855 (Canada) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LOS CUINIS; Linked To: VALGO GRUPO DE INVERSION S.A. DE C.V.).
3. SANCHEZ CARLON, Diana Maria, Calle Ricardo Palma 2814, Colonia Prados Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 11 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C. SACD-790211-KC2 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SACD790211MSLNRN04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: AHOME REAL ESTATE, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSULTORIA INTEGRAL LA FUENTE, SOCIEDAD CIVIL).
4. SANCHEZ CARLON, Silvia Romina, Calle Alberta No. 2166, Fraccionamiento Los Colomos, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Balam Kanche Mza. 30, Lote 002, Condominio Playa Car Fase II, Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo 77710, Mexico; DOB 22 Dec 1986; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C. SACS-861222-PH0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SACS861222MSLNRL04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AHOME REAL ESTATE, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSULTORIA INTEGRAL LA FUENTE, SOCIEDAD CIVIL; Linked To: INTERCORP LEGOCA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: LA FIRMA MIRANDA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: XAMAN HA CENTER).
5. TORRES GONZALEZ, Fernando, Blvd. Puerta de Hierro # 5210, Piso 8-C, Puerta de Hierro, Zapopan, Jalisco 45116, Mexico; Calle Aldama 548, Interior 3, Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; Calle Guadalupe 676, Fraccionamiento Guadalupe, Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; Guayaquil numero 2600, Colonia Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 04 Jul 1970; POB Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; C.U.R.P. TOGF700704HJCRNR06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: CIRCULO COMERCIAL TOTAL DE PRODUCTOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: HD COLLECTION, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: HOTELITO DESCONOCIDO; Linked To: W&G ARQUITECTOS, S.A. DE C.V.).
1. W&G ARQUITECTOS, S.A. DE C.V., 16 de Septiembre No. 21, Col. Manuel Avila Camacho, Naucalpan, Edo. de Mex., Mexico; R.F.C. WAR050401H27 (Mexico) [SDNTK].
The listings for these individuals and entity now appear as follows.
1. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jeniffer Beaney (a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jennifer Beaney; a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZAREZ, Jeniffer Beaney), Sendero De Los Olmos 110, Zapopan, Jalisco 45129, Mexico; 4850 ch de la Cote-Saint-Luc, Montreal, Quebec H3W 2H2, Canada; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 01 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; C.U.R.P. CACJ790201MSLMZN03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.).
2. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Abigael (a.k.a. GOMEZ FLORES, Luis Angel; a.k.a. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Abigail; a.k.a. GONZALEZ VALENCIA, Luis Angel; a.k.a. TAK TOLEDO, Jonathan Paul; a.k.a. TAK TOLEDO, Paul Jonathan), Paseo Royal Country 5395-31, Fraccionamiento Royal Country, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Boulevard Puerta de Hierro 5687, Fraccionamiento Puerta de Hierro, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 18 Oct 1972; alt. DOB 28 Oct 1979; POB Aguililla, Michoacan, Mexico; alt. POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; alt. POB Apatzingan, Michoacan, Mexico; Gender Male; Passport JX755855 (Canada); C.U.R.P. GOVA721018HMNNLB07 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. GOFL721018HJCMLS02 (Mexico); alt. C.U.R.P. GOVL721018HMNNLS08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LOS CUINIS; Linked To: VALGO GRUPO DE INVERSION S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: ASESORES TURISTICOS S.A. DE C.V.).
3. SANCHEZ CARLON, Diana Maria, Calle Ricardo Palma 2814, Colonia Prados Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 11 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C. SACD-790211-KC2 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SACD790211MSLNRN04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: AHOME REAL ESTATE, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSULTORIA INTEGRAL LA FUENTE, SOCIEDAD CIVIL; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: AGRICOLA TAVO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA ORGANICO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA VERDE DE SAYULA S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: STEP LATINAMEDICA S.A. DE C.V.).
4. SANCHEZ CARLON, Silvia Romina, Calle Alberta No. 2166, Fraccionamiento Los Colomos, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Balam Kanche Mza. 30, Lote 002, Condominio Playa Car Fase II, Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo 77710, Mexico; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 22 Dec 1986; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C. SACS-861222-PH0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SACS861222MSLNRL04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AHOME REAL ESTATE, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSULTORIA INTEGRAL LA FUENTE, SOCIEDAD CIVIL; Linked To: INTERCORP LEGOCA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: LA FIRMA MIRANDA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: XAMAN HA CENTER; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: AGRICOLA TAVO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA ORGANICO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA VERDE DE SAYULA S.P.R. DE R.L.).
5. TORRES GONZALEZ, Fernando, Blvd. Puerta de Hierro # 5210, Piso 8-C, Puerta de Hierro, Zapopan, Jalisco 45116, Mexico; Calle Aldama 548, Interior 3, Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; Calle Guadalupe 676, Fraccionamiento Guadalupe, Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; Guayaquil numero 2600, Colonia Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 04 Jul 1970; POB Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; C.U.R.P. TOGF700704HJCRNR06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: CIRCULO COMERCIAL TOTAL DE PRODUCTOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: HD COLLECTION, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: HOTELITO DESCONOCIDO; Linked To: W&G ARQUITECTOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: STATUS ADMINISTRATIVO S. DE R.L.).
1. W&G ARQUITECTOS, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. W AND G ARQUITECTOS, S.A. DE C.V.), 16 de Septiembre No. 21, Col. Manuel Avila Camacho, Naucalpan, Edo. de Mex., Mexico; C. Sao Paulo No. 2435, Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. WAR050401H27 (Mexico) [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of seven individuals, eight entities, and one vessel whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182). Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of one entity currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
The unblocking and removal from the SDN List of the individuals, entities, and vessel identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on April 4, 2016. Additionally, the update to the SDN List of the identifying information of the entity identified in this notice is also effective on April 4, 2016.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S.
On April 4, 2016, the Associate Director of the Office of Global Targeting removed from the SDN List the individuals, entities, and vessel listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. JOUMAA, Mohamad Said (a.k.a. JOMAA, Mohamed Said), Lebanon; DOB 06 Apr 1977; POB Lala, Lebanon; Cedula No. 84076630 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. JOUMAA, Anwar Saied (a.k.a. JOMAA, Anmar; a.k.a. JOMAA, Anwar Said), Lebanon; POB Al Karouan, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Cedula No. 84072009 (Colombia); Passport 392065 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK].
3. JOUMAA, Akram Saied (a.k.a. JOMAA YOUSSEF, Akram Said), Lebanon; DOB 07 Jun 1956; POB Al Karouan, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Passport 11869936 (Venezuela); RUC # 3-NT-1-6255 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK].
4. SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Ernesto, Av. Vallarta 3216, Colonia Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 03 Feb 1967; POB Tepatitlan de Morelos, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. SAGE670203KH4 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SAGE670203HJCNNR06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: GRUPO FRACSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: DBARDI, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSTRUCTORA ACANTU, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO ISAYAS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO INMOBILIARIO OCSA, S.A. DE C.V.).
5. SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Fernando; DOB 24 Sep 1969; POB Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. SAGF690924JU7 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SAGF690924HJCNNR09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: CONSTRUCTORA ACANTU, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO INMOBILIARIO OCSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: INMOBILIARIA ASYSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO ISAYAS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: DBARDI, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO FRACSA, S.A. DE C.V.).
6. SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Javier, Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 15 May 1971; POB Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. SAGJ7105156K9 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SAGJ710515HJCNNV02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INMOBILIARIA ASYSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CARIATIDE GRUPO INMOBILIARIO, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: DBARDI, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO FRACSA, S.A. DE C.V.).
7. SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose, Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 30 Sep 1962; POB Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. SAGJ620930MG0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SAGJ620930HJCNNS03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: GRUPO INSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSTRUCTORA ACANTU, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO INMOBILIARIO OCSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: INMOBILIARIA GORSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: INMOBILIARIA ASYSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO ISAYAS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: INMOBILIARIA NOVSA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: DBARDI, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO FRACSA, S.A. DE C.V.).
1. CONSTRUCTORA ACANTU, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. CAC931015UC2 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Ernesto; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Fernando).
2. GRUPO INMOBILIARIO OCSA, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. GIO050907D57 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Fernando).
3. GRUPO INSA, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. INSA: GRUPO INMOBILIARIO, S.A. DE C.V.), Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. GIN050207A76 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose).
4. GRUPO ISAYAS, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. GIS040527T58 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Fernando).
5. INMOBILIARIA ASYSA, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. IAS050907A14 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Fernando; Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Javier).
6. INMOBILIARIA GORSA, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. IGO060407J63 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose).
7. INMOBILIARIA NOVSA, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. GIN050623D21 (Mexico) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Jose).
8. CAESAR'S PARK HOTEL (a.k.a. CEASAR'S PARK HOTEL; a.k.a. CEASERS PARK HOTEL), Madame Curie St., Beirut, Lebanon [SDNTK].
1. CITY OF TOKYO (3ELV6) Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8709145; MMSI 636016488 (vessel) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MERHI, Merhi Ali Abou; Linked To: ABOU-MERHI LINES SAL).
Additionally, on April 4, 2016, the Associate Director of the Office of Global Targeting updated the SDN List for one entity listed below, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. CARIATIDE GRUPO INMOBILIARIO, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. CGI0501197ST (Mexico) [SDNTK]. (Linked to SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Javier)
-to-
CARIATIDE GRUPO INMOBILIARIO, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3216, Col. Vallarta San Jorge, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44690, Mexico; R.F.C. CGI0501197ST (Mexico) [SDNTK].
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning April 1, 2016, and ending on June 30, 2016, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 0.30 per centum per annum.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Effective April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016.
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545] In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the TreasuryDirect Web site.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, the Commission on Care gives notice that it will meet on Monday, April 18, 2016, and Tuesday, April 19, 2016, at the J.W. Marriott, Jr. ASAE Conference Center, 1575 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 6:00 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, April 18, 2016. The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and end by 4:00 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, April 19, 2016. The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission, as described in section 202 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, is to examine the access of veterans to health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and strategically examine how best to organize the Veterans Health Administration, locate health care resources, and deliver health care to veterans during the next 20 years.
Time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral statements from the public on Tuesday, April 19th from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT). Statements will be limited to five minutes and, due to time constraints, no more than ten individuals will be permitted to speak. Those interested in making oral statements, must register their intent to do so and provide written copies of their proposed statements to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) no later than 5:00 p.m. (EDT). on Wednesday, April 15, 2016. Speaking slots will be confirmed on a first come, first serve basis. The public may also submit written statements at any time for the Commission's review to
Any members of the public wishing to attend the meeting may register their intentions by emailing the DFO, John Goodrich, at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for the Big Sandy crayfish (
This rule is effective May 9, 2016.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Martin Miller, Chief, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035; telephone 413-253-8615; facsimile 413-253-8482. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these species.
In the proposed rule published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18710), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 8, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the Lexington Herald on April 9, 2015, and in the Coalfield Progress and Charleston Gazette on April 10, 2015. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. On December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77598), we reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days to make the results of two 2015 summer surveys of the species available for public review and comment.
During the initial 60-day public comment period (April 7, 2015, to June 8, 2015) and the reopened 30-day comment period (December 15, 2015, to January 14, 2016), we received public comments from 42,026 individuals or organizations. Of these, 41,974 were form letters submitted by individuals associated with several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that expressed support for the listing of the two species but did not provide any new or substantive information. One NGO also submitted a separate comment letter on behalf of itself and 26 other NGOs. This comment letter was supportive of listing the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes and generally reiterated information from the proposed rule. We also received five comments from government agencies. Two were generally supportive of the proposed listing, one was opposed, and two did not offer an opinion.
We received 46 comments from individuals, including peer reviewers and various industry groups or companies. Of these 46, 18 were supportive of listing the two species, 14 were opposed, and 7 did not offer an opinion. The remaining seven public commenters submitted comments on topics related to other issues not specific to the listing proposal, such as general criticism of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion
In general, the peer reviewers all commented that we had thoroughly and accurately summarized the best available scientific data. We incorporated revisions into the final rule as a result of the peer reviewer comments. Any substantive comments are discussed below.
(1)
Since publishing the proposed rule, the Service funded additional crayfish surveys in the Upper Guyandotte and Big Sandy River basins to better inform our final analysis. The results of these new crayfish surveys (see Loughman 2015a, entire; Loughman 2015b, entire) generally confirmed our previous analysis of each species' status and range, and are discussed in more detail under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below. The surveys found two new stream occurrences (four sites) for the Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Tug Fork basin (Loughman 2015a, pp. 10-17). These data, along with the 2009 confirmation of the species in the lower Levisa Fork, support our conclusion that the Big Sandy crayfish historically occupied suitable habitat in the lower portions of these river basins. As discussed in the proposed rule, other lines of evidence that the species once occupied a much greater range in the lower reaches of the Levisa and Tug Fork basins than it currently does include: (1) Genetic evidence that the range of the species within the Big Sandy basin was once much larger than it is presently; (2) the opinion of crayfish experts who have surveyed for the species; and (3) the analogous range reduction of the closely related Guyandotte River crayfish, which is subject to similar environmental stressors and threats as the Big Sandy crayfish.
Additionally, the new occurrence locations in the lower Tug Fork, specifically the three Pigeon Creek sites, indicate an increase in the Big Sandy crayfish's redundancy above what was known when we published the proposed rule. This increase in redundancy also contributes to the species' overall resiliency and is discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below.
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Additionally, in January 2016, the VDGIF provided the Service with 12 Big Sandy crayfish survey and relocation
When we published the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we relied on the best scientific and commercial data available at that time to determine the distribution and abundance of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes. As described in the proposed rule, these data included a Service-funded biological status review of the two species, which included an examination of records and vouchered specimens in all known crayfish collections from the region. These collections are held by the United States National Museum, Illinois Natural History Survey, Eastern Kentucky University, Ohio State University, West Liberty University, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The only relevant new data we received during the public comment period were three new stream occurrence records, two for the Big Sandy crayfish (Pigeon Creek and lower Tug Fork mainstem) and one for the Guyandotte River crayfish (Clear Fork). We used this information in developing this final rule. We received no other substantive information regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data and note that the six scientific peer reviewers indicated that we conducted a thorough review and analysis of the best available data. There is no substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data to indicate the need for a 6-month extension.
The Service funded new crayfish surveys during the summer of 2015 that compared crayfish presence and abundance (as catch per unit effort
Because the two public comment periods totaled 90 days and because we received few comments during the reopened comment period, we believe that there has been sufficient time for the public to review and provide comments on the proposed rule and supporting information. While we welcome new information about these species at any time, as previously stated, the Service must make listing determinations based solely on the best available data and within certain statutory timeframes (see our response to Comment 14).
Prior to drafting the proposed rule, we did seek input from the State wildlife or environmental resource agencies in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. We also submitted notice of the proposed rule to the affected States in accordance with the Act. In response, we received substantive data and/or comments from the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW), the VDGIF, the WVDEP/DMR, and the WVDNR. We addressed the agency comments (see
A “warranted but precluded” finding means the Service has enough information to list a species as endangered or threatened, but is precluded from undertaking the rulemaking process because of other actions for species with higher conservation priorities. Given the best available scientific data that indicated the Guyandotte River crayfish was known only from a single location and was subject to ongoing threats to the species' habitat and to individual crayfish, the Guyandotte River crayfish was the Service's highest priority at the time. In addition, the data for the Big Sandy crayfish indicated that it too was in decline and facing threats similar to those faced by the Guyandotte River crayfish. Therefore, we appropriately prioritized the proposed listing of both species. These determinations were within the Service's discretion.
In the proposed rule, we did not identify natural flood events as a threat to either the Big Sandy or the Guyandotte River crayfishes. Because these species evolved to live in the fast-flowing streams and rivers in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, where episodic flood events are natural and recurring phenomena, we did not consider floods as a threat to either species' existence. However, as we discussed in the proposed rule, and below in this final rule (see “Residential/Commercial Development and Associated Stream Modifications” under the
We concur that the best available data indicate that Statewide BMP implementation rates for commercial forestry operations in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia are generally high. However, as we noted in the proposed rule, in Kentucky and West Virginia, some categories of forestry, such as tree clearing in advance of coal mining, gas drilling, or other construction activities, are specifically exempted from implementing forestry BMPs. Regardless of specific forestry BMP implementation rates or situational efficacies, the State water quality monitoring reports (WVDEP 2012; KDOW 2013; VADEQ 2014) list timber operations (along with mining, roads, urban development, agriculture, and riparian clearing) as contributing excess sediments to streams and rivers within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes.
Although we do not have sufficient data to produce comprehensive sediment budgets for each land-disturbing activity, in the proposed rule we did use the best available data to estimate the annual erosion potential within the ranges of the two species and stated that “. . . if the forest is undisturbed, about 3,906 tonnes (3,828 tons) of sediment will erode, while logging the same area will produce perhaps 67,158 to 149,436 tonnes (65,815 to 146,447 tons) of sediment” (80 FR 18710, p. 18730). One commenter indicated these estimates appeared too high and used data from much older studies to produce lower estimates. This comment led to our discovering two errors in our original calculations. However, upon correcting these errors (one transcription error and one unit conversion error), we have revised the estimated erosion rate from an undisturbed forested site in the southern Appalachians from 0.31 tonnes per hectare (ha) per year (yr) (0.12 tons per acre (ac) per year (yr)) to 0.47 tonnes/ha/yr (0.21 tons/ac/yr). This results in our original estimate of erosion from undisturbed forest, “3,906 tonnes (3,828 tons)”, being corrected to “5,922 tonnes (6,456 tons).” We also corrected a “tonnes” to “tons” conversion error (“65,815 to 146,447 tons” is in error and should be “73,173 to 162,641 tons”). As to the commenter's use of older studies (dated 1965 to 1979) to estimate lower erosion potentials, we concluded that the data we used (see Hood
Based on our estimate of annual, ongoing soil erosion from rotational forestry within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, and because these species appear to be particularly sensitive to stream sedimentation and bottom embeddedness, we maintain that sedimentation resulting from forestry is likely a contributing threat to these species. We are also committed to working with State and Federal agencies, the timber industry, and landowners to help minimize erosion from commercial forestry operations and maintain the instream habitat quality for these species.
We do not agree that the taxonomic split of the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish confounds the interpretation of earlier survey reports. While historically the two species were identified collectively as
In addition, neither the peer reviewers, including two with extensive experience surveying for crayfish in the Appalachian region, nor the VDGIF or the WVDNR disagreed with our analysis and description of the historical ranges of the two species. We did not receive any new data during the public comment period that indicated either species historically occupied sites outside of their respective river basins. Therefore, the best available data indicate that the Big Sandy crayfish is endemic to the Big Sandy River basin and the Guyandotte River crayfish is endemic to the Upper Guyandotte River basin.
In the proposed rule, figure 4 shows all known survey sites and occurrence locations for the Big Sandy crayfish, broken down by time period (pre-2006 and 2006 to 2014). We acknowledge that figure 4 could be perceived as showing that the range of the Big Sandy crayfish has expanded since 2006, but we emphasize that this is only an artifact resulting from greatly increased sampling effort since 2006, especially outside of the Russell Fork drainage basin. Along with the known occurrence locations (pre-2006), the more recent surveys included streams throughout the Big Sandy crayfish's range that were identified by crayfish experts as being likely to harbor the species. Because these new sites are not known to have been surveyed previously, they provide no direct evidence that the species' range or population has increased or decreased in recent years. Loughman (2015a, entire) expanded the survey coverage in the Big Sandy basin, especially in the lower Levisa Fork and Tug Fork systems. His work generally confirmed the previously known occurrence locations, but did note four new occurrence locations in the lower Tug Fork basin (one in the Tug Fork mainstem and three in the Pigeon Creek system). These areas had not been surveyed previously and provide no direct evidence on population trends.
However, as we described in the proposed rule (see text and Table 2a; 80 FR 18710, pp.18719-18721), the fact that researchers were unable to confirm the species' presence at most locations throughout its historical range (displayed as open circles on figure 4 of the proposed rule) indicates that the species' range and population is reduced and that the existing subpopulations are fragmented from each other. Additionally, at many sites where the Big Sandy crayfish does still exist, especially outside of the Russell Fork basin, the CPUE data indicate the species is found in relatively low numbers (see
While we appreciate the concern about potential management actions that may result from listing the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the Act does not allow us to factor those economic concerns into our listing decision (see our response to Comment 21, above). However, we must consider economic impacts into designations of critical habitat, should critical habitat be proposed for either or both species.
This final rule incorporates appropriate changes to our proposed listing based on the comments we received, as discussed above, and newly
Other substantive changes include the following: (1) We incorporated the results of new crayfish survey efforts, including new occurrence records for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish, into this final rule; and (2) we analyzed several additional potential threats to both species, including instream projects, dams, climate change, unstable streams, and transportation spills.
The information in the following sections is summarized from the proposed listing rule for the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish (80 FR 18710; April 7, 2015) and its citations are incorporated by reference unless otherwise noted. For a complete summary of the species' information, please see the proposed listing rule.
The Big Sandy crayfish (
Thoma (2009, entire; 2010, entire) reported demographic and life-history observations for the Big Sandy crayfish in Virginia and Kentucky. He concluded that the general life cycle pattern of the species is 2 to 3 years of growth, maturation in the third year, and first mating in midsummer of the third or fourth year. Following midsummer mating, the annual cycle involves egg laying in late summer or fall, spring release of young, and late spring/early summer molting. Thoma hypothesized the likely lifespan of the Big Sandy crayfish to be 5 to 7 years, with the possibility of some individuals reaching 10 years of age. There is less information available specific to the life history of the Guyandotte River crayfish, but based on other shared characteristics with the Big Sandy crayfish, we conclude the life span and age to maturity are similar. The best available data indicate both species are opportunistic omnivores, feeding on plant and animal matter (Thoma 2009b, pp. 3, 13; Loughman 2014, pp. 20-21).
The best available data indicate that the historical range of the Guyandotte River crayfish is limited to the Upper Guyandotte River basin in West Virginia and that the historical range of the Big Sandy crayfish is limited to the upper Big Sandy River basin in eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and southern West Virginia. Both river basins are in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, which is characterized by rugged, mountainous terrain with steep hills and ridges dissected by a network of deeply incised valleys (Ehlke
Suitable habitat for both species is generally described as clean, third order or larger (width of 4 to 20 meters (m) (13 to 66 feet (ft))), fast-flowing, permanent streams and rivers with an abundance of large, unembedded slab boulders on a sand, cobble, or bedrock stream bottom (Jezerinac
Both species appear to be intolerant of excessive sedimentation and embeddedness of the stream bottom substrate. This statement is based on observed habitat characteristics from sites that either formerly supported the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish or from sites within either of the species' historical ranges that were predicted to be suitable for the species, but where neither of the species (and in some cases no crayfish from any species) were observed (Jezerinac
Here, we summarize the two species' distribution, abundance, and threats
Historically (prior to 2006), the Big Sandy crayfish was known from 11 stream systems in the 4 larger subwatersheds in the upper Big Sandy River watershed: Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork (see figure 1, below). However, pre-2006 survey data for the species is sparse, with only 25 surveyed sites in 13 stream systems. Most of these records were from the Russell Fork subwatershed (with multiple records dating back to 1937), and single records were available from the Levisa Fork, Upper Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork subwatersheds (all confirmed between 1999 and 2002).
The Big Sandy crayfish is currently known from a total of 21 stream systems in the same four subwatersheds. However, we emphasize this apparent increase in occupied stream systems is an artifact of increased sampling effort, and not necessarily an increase in the species' redundancy. From 2006 to 2015, a series of surveys were conducted that effectively covered the species' historical range, including the first comprehensive rangewide survey for the species, which was funded by the Service in 2015 (see Loughman 2015a, entire). During this period, a total of 276 sites (including all historical locations and additional “semi-random” locations (
While the species is still found in all four subwatersheds, current data (2006 to 2015) indicate notable differences in the species' distribution in each subwatershed. In the Russell Fork subwatershed, the Big Sandy crayfish was found in 92 percent of the stream systems surveyed (52 percent of sites). In the other subwatersheds, the species was less well distributed. In the Levisa Fork and Upper Levisa Fork watersheds, only 13 percent of the surveyed stream systems were occupied (19 and 24 percent of sites, respectively) and in the Tug Fork subwatershed, 35 percent of surveyed stream systems were occupied (23 percent of sites) (see figure 1 and tables 1a through 1d, below).
In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we indicated that the Guyandotte River crayfish was historically known from nine individual streams in the Upper Guyandotte River basin (80 FR 18710, pp. 18717-18720); we have since revised this to be six individual streams (or stream systems where their smaller tributaries were also surveyed). Based on the best available data at the time of the proposed rule, we considered the species' distribution based on its occupancy status in each individually named stream. On closer analysis of the watershed, we determined that some of these individually named streams were actually smaller tributaries connected into a primary tributary stream (
The Guyandotte River crayfish is currently known from two disjunct stream systems in the Upper Guyandotte River basin. In 2015, the Service funded additional rangewide surveys for the species (see Loughman 2015b). A total of 71 likely sites (in 21 stream systems) were surveyed throughout the Upper Guyandotte River basin, including all historical locations and additional “semi-random” locations). The species was confirmed at 10 individual sites (in two stream systems). In Pinnacle Creek, the last known occupied stream, the species was found at 4 of 9 sites surveyed. And in Clear Fork, which is a new stream record for the species, the Guyandotte River crayfish was found at 6 of 9 sites (see figure 2 and table 2, below).
There are no historical or current total population estimates for the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. However, the best available data provide information on the distribution and abundance of each species. Historical survey information, historical stream connectedness, current distribution data, genetic evidence, and expert opinion support that these species once occupied most, perhaps all, third order or larger stream systems throughout their respective ranges. The evidence further supports the conclusion that, under natural (
Survey data from 1900 (prior to the widespread industrialization of the region) and from current occupied streams that maintain high-quality habitat indicate that unrestricted sampling at a “healthy” site should produce 20 to 25 individual Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfish specimens (Faxon 1914, pp. 389-390; Thoma 2009a, p. 10; ATS 2010, entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2014b, entire; VDOT 2015, entire). Between 2006 and 2015, where possible, survey data were normalized to a common metric, “catch per unit effort” (CPUE). In general, sites described as “robust” or “healthy” maintained CPUE values of 5 or more crayfish per hour (Thoma 2009, pp. 17-18; Thoma 2010, p. 6; Loughman 2014, p. 15).
In 2015, 39 sites in the Big Sandy River basin (representing 25 percent of those surveyed) were positive for the Big Sandy crayfish. The
In 2015, 10 sites in the Upper Guyandotte River basin (representing 14 percent of those surveyed) were positive for the Guyandotte River crayfish. The
As with the distribution data discussed above, the 2015 survey data indicate differences in CPUE values and overall habitat quality (as measured by the standard QHEI) between the four major subwatersheds (see tables 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d, below). In the Russell Fork basin, the
Additionally, Big Sandy crayfish relocation surveys conducted in the Russell Fork basin between 2009 and 2015 indicate that, in the relatively high quality streams of this subwatershed, the species appears to occur along significant stream distances, not necessarily just discrete locations. During these relocation surveys, the species was also collected in high numbers at many sites. Based on these relocation survey data and the distribution data that indicated 92 percent of the streams in the Russell Fork basin are occupied (see table 1c, above), we conclude that the population of Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork subwatershed is likely more resilient than indicated by the data available at the time we published the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710).
The best available data indicate that the distribution and abundance of both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are reduced from their historical levels. The Big Sandy crayfish currently occupies approximately 38 percent of the presumed historically suitable stream systems within its historical range. Within these stream systems, the most recent survey data indicate that the species occupies 31 percent of the surveyed sites. However, as described above, this percentage varies markedly among the four major subwatersheds, with the species being poorly represented in the Levisa Fork and Upper Levisa Fork subwatersheds. The Guyandotte River crayfish currently occupies only two streams, or approximately 8 percent of the presumed historically suitable stream systems within its historical range. Within these two streams, the species is currently found at 12 percent of the individual sites surveyed. The CPUE data also indicate that, at currently occupied sites, both species are generally found in low numbers, with few sites indicating “robust” populations of Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. It is possible that additional occurrences of either species could be found, but not probable given the extent of the current survey efforts (see figures 1 and 2, above) combined with habitat quality information (either natural or human mediated conditions) discussed below. In addition to occupying fewer streams and sites within streams, the species' stream occurrences are fragmented and isolated from each other (see figures 3 and 4, below).
Within the historical range of both the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfish, the aquatic habitat has been severely degraded by past and ongoing human activities (Hunt
The best available data indicate that the presence and abundance of both the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish are correlated with habitat quality, specifically streams with slab boulders and low levels of sedimentation and substrate embeddedness (Jezerinac
The past and ongoing effects of coal mining in the Appalachian Basin are well documented, and both underground and surface mines are reported to degrade water quality and stream habitats (Matter and Ney 1981, pp. 67-70; Williams
Underground mining accounts for most of the coal excavated in the region, but since the 1970s, surface mining (including “mountaintop removal mining” or MTR) has become more prevalent. Mountaintop removal mining is differentiated from other mining techniques by the shear amount of overburden (
The best available data indicate that much of the residual erosion and sedimentation effects from surface coal mining are likely to continue indefinitely. The geology of the mountain ridges in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province makes them resistant to erosion. However surface coal mining, and especially MTR mining, breaks down this inherently erosion-resistant bedrock into unconsolidated “spoil” material that is much more vulnerable to erosional forces, especially flowing water. Through the removal of this stable bedrock material in order to access coal seams, and subsequent disposal of the unconsolidated mine spoil in adjacent valley fills, surface coal mining causes significant geomorphic disturbances with long-term consequences for the region's streams (Kite 2009, pp. 4, 6-9).
The legacy effects of surface coal mining persist long after active mining ceases. While post-Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) mine reclamation techniques help reduce erosion following mine closure, especially as compared to pre-SMCRA conditions, comparisons of recently mined and reclaimed watersheds to unmined watersheds indicate streams below reclaimed MTR sites can be unstable (Fox 2009, pp. 1286-1287; Jaeger 2015, pp. 30-32). For example, research indicates that after surface coal mining reclamation is complete, the altered geomorphology and hydrology in the watershed causes streams to adjust to these new conditions (Fox 2009, pp. 1286-1287). This adjustment process includes streambank erosion that contributes sediments to streams downstream of the mined watersheds. Other indicators of unstable streams downstream of mined sites include increased maximum stream depth, changes in stream profile, more exposed bedrock, and increased frequency of fine sediment loads (Jaeger 2015, pp. 30-32).
The sedimentation effects from stream instability differ from site to site, and there is uncertainty as to the time required for streams to reach a new equilibrium after surface mining ends. Additionally, numerous failures (
Of particular concern to the Guyandotte River crayfish are several active surface coal mines in the Pinnacle Creek watershed that may pose an immediate threat to the continued existence of that subpopulation, one of only two known to exist. These mines are located either on Pinnacle Creek (
Historically, coal mining has been ubiquitous within the ranges of both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. While coal extraction from the southern Appalachian region has declined from the historical highs of the 20th century, and is unlikely to ever return to those levels (Milici and Dennen 2009, pp. 9-10; McIlmoil
The dominant land cover within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is forest. Commercial timber harvesting occurs throughout the region and, especially in areas directly adjacent to, or on the steep slopes above, streams and rivers, has the potential to degrade aquatic habitats, primarily by increasing erosion and sedimentation (Arthur
Erosion rates from logged sites in the mountainous terrain of the southern Appalachians are significantly higher than from undisturbed forest sites (Hood
Forestry “best management practices” (BMPs) are designed to reduce the amount of erosion at logging sites, however the rates of BMP adherence and effectiveness at logging sites within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes vary. The best available data indicate that BMP implementation rates in the region range from about 80 to 90 percent; however, we could not locate current data on the actual efficacy of BMPs in the steep terrain that characterizes Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River basins. Additionally, the implementation of forestry BMPs is not required for certain timber cutting operations. For example, in Kentucky, tree clearing incidental to preparing coal mining sites is specifically exempted, and in West Virginia, tree-clearing activities incidental to ground-disturbing construction activities, including those related to oil and gas development, are exempted (Kentucky Division of Forestry undated fact sheet, downloaded February 5, 2015; West Virginia Division of Forestry 2014, pp. 3-4).
While Hood
The Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province is underlain by numerous geological formations that contain natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil. The Marcellus shale formation underlies the entire range of the Guyandotte River crayfish and a high proportion of the range of the Big Sandy crayfish, specifically McDowell County, West Virginia, and part of Buchanan County, Virginia (U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) 2011, p. 5), and various formations that make up the Devonian Big Sandy shale gas play (
Numerous studies have reported that natural gas development has the potential to degrade aquatic habitats (Boelter
Within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, the topography is rugged and the dominant land cover is forest; therefore, the construction of new gas wells and related infrastructure usually involves timber cutting and significant earth moving to create level well pads, access roads, and pipeline rights-of-way, all of which increases the potential for erosion. For example, Drohan and Brittingham (2012, entire) analyzed the runoff potential for shale gas development sites in the Allegheny Plateau region of Pennsylvania, and found that 50 to 70 percent of existing or permitted pad sites had medium to very high runoff potential and were at an elevated risk of soil erosion. McBroom
We anticipate the rate of oil and gas development within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes to increase based on projections from a report by IHS Global, Inc. (2013, p. 4), produced for the American Petroleum Institute, which indicate that the “recent surge in oil and gas transportation and storage infrastructure investment is not a short lived phenomenon. Rather, we find that a sustained period of high levels of oil and gas infrastructure investment will continue through the end of the decade.” While this projection is generalized across all oil and gas infrastructure within the United States, an increase of new infrastructure within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is also anticipated because of the yet untapped Marcellus and Devonian Big Sandy shale resources discussed above.
The Pinnacle Creek Trail System, opened in 2004, is located entirely within the Pinnacle Creek watershed and may pose a significant threat to the continued existence of the Guyandotte River crayfish population in this stream. Approximately 13 km (8.0 mi) of the Pinnacle Creek trail is located in the riparian zone adjacent to the stream reach that currently harbors the Guyandotte River crayfish. At several locations along this section of trail, riders are known to operate their vehicles in the streambed or in adjacent “mud holes” (You Tube 2008; You Tube 2010; You Tube 2011; You Tube 2013; Loughman, pers. comm., October 24, 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that these activities increase erosion and sedimentation in Pinnacle Creek and degrade the habitat of the Guyandotte River crayfish. In addition, the instream operation of ORVs in Pinnacle Creek has the potential to crush or injure individual crayfish directly.
In West Virginia, the Coalfields Expressway right-of-way crosses Wyoming and McDowell Counties roughly perpendicular to the King Coal Highway and continues into Buchanan, Dickenson, and Wise Counties, Virginia (see figure 5, below). This project runs through the Upper Guyandotte, Tug Fork, Levisa Fork, and Russell Fork watersheds and has the potential to affect the aquatic habitats in each basin. Of particular concern are sections of the Coalfields Expressway planned through perhaps the most robust Big Sandy crayfish populations in Dickenson County, Virginia, especially when those populations are directly adjacent to, or downslope from, the construction sites and if those construction sites do not use sufficient erosion control measures.
Both highways will also have a yet undetermined number of feeder roads connecting completed segments to other existing roadways. Some of these feeder roads will further bisect the two species' ranges and will likely be a source of additional sedimentation, especially if these roads do not use sufficient erosion control measures and are directly adjacent to, or upslope from, streams occupied or likely to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. Because the highways are being built in phases when funding is available, the original planned completion schedule of approximately 2018 has been delayed, and we anticipate construction will continue until approximately 2030 (see
Data indicate that between 2009 and 2015, 12 projects were conducted in the Russell Fork and upper Levisa Fork subwatersheds of Virginia that involved the potential relocation of Big Sandy crayfish (Appalachian Energy 2009; ATS 2009, entire; ATS 2010, entire; D.R. Allen and Associates 2010, entire; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 2011, entire; ATS 2012a, entire; ATS 2012b, entire; VDOT 2014a, entire; VDOT 2014b, entire; VDOT 2014c, entire; VDOT 2014d, entire; VDOT 2015, entire). While these data indicate instream projects occur within the range of the Big Sandy crayfish, we do not have any information on the total number of instream projects within the Kentucky or West Virginia areas of the species' range, nor do we have this information for the Guyandotte River crayfish, because the two crayfish are not State-listed species in Kentucky or West Virginia (see further discussion below under
As noted above, within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, most development occurs adjacent to streams and rivers within the narrow valleys and can alter the local hydrology and lead to increased erosion and sedimentation from disturbed land surfaces (80 FR 18710, pp. 18723-18724, 18728; April 7, 2015). Because human infrastructure and streams are in close proximity to each other, streams are often realigned and/or channelized to increase the amount of usable land area or to protect existing structures through the aforementioned flood control. These modifications, such as straightening, dredging, and armoring stream channels, increases stream flow velocities, or stream energy, and often leads to increased bed and bank erosion either in the modified stream reach or in downstream reaches (Keller 1978, pp. 119, 124-125; Brooker 1985, p. 1; Edwards
While the best available data indicate that erosion and sedimentation leading to stream substrate embeddedness is the primary threat to both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes, other pollutants also degrade the streams and rivers within the ranges of these species and likely contributed to their decline and continued reduced distribution and abundance. As described in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, the best available data indicate widespread water quality problems throughout the Big Sandy River basin and the Upper Guyandotte River basin (USEPA 2004, entire; WVDEP 2012, pp. 32-33; KDOW 2013, appendix E; VADEQ 2014, pp. 1098-1124). The pollutants commonly cited are metals (
Species presence/absence may be a poor measure for assessing the potential for high salinity levels (measured as conductivity) to affect the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. The studies described above provide no data on potential sublethal effects (
Based on the best available data, we conclude that elevated conductivity levels, which are common throughout the Big Sandy and Upper Guyadotte River basins, may cause physiological stress in the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. This stress may result in subtle, perhaps sublethal, effects that contribute to the decline and continued poor distribution and abundance of these species.
Other common byproducts of coal mining, such as dissolved manganese and iron, may also affect the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Manganese and iron can be absorbed by crayfish through gill respiration or ingestion and may cause sublethal effects such as reduced reproductive capacity (Baden and Eriksson 2006, p. 73). Iron and manganese also physically bond to crayfish exoskeletons, which may interfere with crayfish sensory sensila (
Ancillary to the coal mines are the processing facilities that use various mechanical and hydraulic techniques to separate the coal from rock and other geological waste material. This process results in the creation of large volumes of “coal slurry,” a blend of water, coal fines, and sand, silt, and clay particles, which is commonly disposed of in large impoundments created in the valleys near the coal mines. In multiple instances, these impoundments have failed catastrophically and caused substantial damage to downstream aquatic habitats (and in some cases the loss of human life) (Michalek
In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710, pp. 18732-18734), we discussed the effects of habitat fragmentation caused by dams and reservoirs within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. We did not, however, address the potential for dams to cause direct effects to the aquatic habitat, which was brought to our attention by a peer reviewer. The most obvious change caused by dam construction is the conversion of flowing riverine habitat to lacustrine (lake) habitat, thereby making it unsuitable for the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes (see our response to Comment 2, above). Our analysis indicates that in the upper Big Sandy basin, the three major flood control dams created reservoirs that inundated approximately 89 km (55 mi) of riverine habitat. The Dewey Dam, in Floyd County, Kentucky, was built in 1949, and inundated 29 km (18 mi) of Johns Creek (in the Levisa Fork subwatershed). The Fishtrap Dam, in Pike County, Kentucky, was built in 1969, and inundated 27 km (16.5 mi) of the Levisa Fork. The Flannagan Dam in Dickenson County, Virginia, was built in 1964, and inundated an estimated 33 km (20.5 mi) of the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers. In the Upper Guyandotte River basin, the R.D. Bailey Dam in Wyoming County, West Virginia, was built in 1980, and inundated approximately 13 km (8.1 mi) of the Guyandotte River. These estimates of altered habitat are conservative, as they do not include any tributary streams inundated or account for changes in stream geomorphology and flow conditions directly upstream of the reservoir pools or below the dams that likely also make these areas less suitable for either crayfish species. Additionally, numerous scientific studies note significant ecological and water quality changes downstream of dams, including increased or decreased water temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated levels of certain metals or nutrients, and shifts in fish and macroinvertebrate community structure (Power
Therefore, we conclude that the past construction of flood control dams within the ranges of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes not only fragmented the species' available habitat, but also caused a decrease in available habitat within their historical ranges. However, we consider the loss-of-habitat effect to be historical and to have already influenced the species' current distribution. The fragmentation effects are ongoing and contribute to the threat of small population sizes addressed below under
The best available data indicate that the primary threats to both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes throughout their respective ranges are land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species. Identified sources of ongoing erosion and sedimentation that occur throughout the ranges of the species include active surface coal mining, commercial forestry, unpaved roads, gas and oil development, road construction, and stream modifications that cause channel instability. These activities are ongoing (
In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we found no information indicating that overutilization has led to the loss of populations or a significant reduction in numbers of individuals for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. No new information from peer review or public comments indicates that overutilization is a concern for either of these species. In addition, when this final listing becomes effective (see DATES, above), research and collection of these species will be regulated through scientific permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
In the April 7, 2015, proposed rule, we found no information indicating that disease or predation has led to the loss of populations or a significant reduction in numbers of individuals of the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish. No new information from peer
Few existing Federal or State regulatory mechanisms specifically protect the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes or the aquatic habitats where they occur. The species' habitats are afforded some protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251
In 1989, 12 years after enactment of the CWA and SMCRA, the Guyandotte River crayfish was known to occur in low numbers in Huff Creek and Pinnacle Creek (Jezerinac
As discussed in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and in this rule, erosion and sedimentation caused by various land-disturbing activities, such as surface coal mining, roads, forestry, and oil and gas development, pose an ongoing threat to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. State efforts to address excessive erosion and sedimentation involve the implementation of BMPs; however, as discussed in detail in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and under
Although the majority of the land throughout the ranges of the two species is privately owned, publicly managed lands in the region include a portion of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, and 10 State wildlife management areas and parks in the remainder of the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte watershed (1 in Russell Fork, 3 in Levisa Fork, 4 in Tug Fork, 2 in Upper Guyandotte). However, three of these parcels surround artificial reservoirs that are no longer suitable habitat for either the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish, and six others are not in known occupied crayfish habitat. Only the Jefferson National Forest and the Breaks Interstate Park in the Russell Fork watershed at the Kentucky/Virginia border appear to potentially offer additional protections to extant Big Sandy crayfish populations, presumably through stricter management of land-disturbing activities that cause erosion and sedimentation. However, the extent of publically owned land adding to the protection of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is minimal and not sufficient to offset the rangewide threats to either species.
Degradation of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish habitat (Factor A) is ongoing despite existing regulatory mechanisms. While these regulatory efforts have led to some improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat conditions, the declines of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes within most of their ranges have continued to occur. In addition, there are no existing regulatory mechanisms that address effects to the species associated with the species' endemism and their isolated and small population sizes, as well as the contributing stressor of climate change (discussed below under
It is intuitive and generally accepted that the key factors governing a species' risk of extinction include small population size, reduced habitat size, and fragmented habitat (Pimm
As detailed in this final rule and in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710), both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are known to exist only in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province and are limited to certain stream classes and habitat types within their respective river basins. Furthermore, the extant populations of each species are limited to certain subwatersheds, which are physically isolated from the others by steep topography, stream distance, human-induced inhospitable intervening habitat conditions, and/or physical barriers (
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift, potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression,
Also, as noted in the April 7, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 18710) and above under
Because the Big Sandy crayfish is wholly aquatic and therefore limited in its ability to move from one location to another by the basin's complex hydrology, the species' overall distribution and abundance must be considered carefully when evaluating its risk of extinction. Prior to the significant habitat degradation that began in the late 1800s, the Big Sandy crayfish likely occurred in suitable stream habitat throughout its range (from the Levisa Fork/Tug Fork confluence to the headwater streams in the Russell Fork, Levisa Fork, and Tug Fork basins) (Thoma 2010, p. 6; Thoma
Based on habitat connectedness (or lack thereof), we consider there to be six existing Big Sandy crayfish subpopulations: lower Tug Fork population (Pigeon Creek), upper Tug Fork population, the Upper Levisa Fork population (Dismal Creek), the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork population (including Shelby Creek), the Pound River population, and the Cranes Nest River population (see figure 3, above). While the Pound River and Cranes Nest River are in the same subwatershed, they both flow into the Flannagan Reservoir, which is unsuitable habitat for the species (see our response to Comment 3, above). Therefore, the Big Sandy crayfish populations in these streams are not only isolated from other populations by the dam and reservoir, but also most likely isolated from each other by the inhospitable habitat in the reservoir itself (Loughman, pers. comm., December 1, 2014). Also, because the Fishtrap Dam physically isolates the upper Levisa Fork (Dismal Creek) population from the remainder of the species' range, only the Tug Fork and the Russell Fork/Levisa Fork subpopulations still maintain any possible connection.
There are two occurrences that are unlikely to represent viable subpopulations. One is an occurrence in the lower Levisa Fork mainstem near the town of Auxier, Kentucky. This site was last confirmed (a single Big Sandy crayfish was recovered) in 2009 (Thoma 2010, p. 6). This location is more than 50 km (31 mi) downstream of the nearest other occupied site. In 2009, eight other likely sites in the lower Levisa system were surveyed and found negative for the species, and in 2015, nine additional sites were surveyed and found negative in this area of the lower Levisa Fork subwatershed. Therefore, we conclude that the lower Levisa Fork system does not represent a viable subpopulation. However, because the exact site near Auxier, Kentucky, was not surveyed in 2015, and because the Big Sandy crayfish has an estimated lifespan of 7 to 10 years, and because we have no evidence that habitat conditions have changed, it is reasonable to conclude that this site may remain occupied. Secondly, in 2015, a new occurrence location was also reported in the lower Tug Fork mainstem, with two Big Sandy crayfish captured (one was
The six subpopulations differ in their resiliency. The upper Levisa Fork, Pound River, and Cranes Nest River populations generally persist in single stream reaches. While the species appears to be moderately abundant in these streams, the available CPUE data indicate that the species has declined in abundance in the Pound and Cranes Nest Rivers since 2007 (see table 3, above). The fact that they are restricted to single streams (versus a network of streams) makes them especially susceptible to catastrophic loss (
This isolation, caused by habitat fragmentation, reduces the resiliency of the species by eliminating the potential movement of individuals from one subpopulation to another, or to unoccupied sites that could become habitable in the future. This inhibits gene flow in the species as a whole and will likely reduce the genetic diversity and perhaps the fitness of individuals in the remaining subpopulations. The individual subpopulations are also at an increased risk from catastrophic events such as spills or to stochastic decline.
As discussed above under
A contributing factor to the imperilment of the habitat-specialist Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes may be increased interspecific competition brought about by habitat degradation (Loughman 2015a, pp. 42-43; Loughman 2015b, p. 36). Both the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are associated with faster moving water of riffles and runs with unembedded substrate, while other native species such as the spiny stream crayfish (
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the evidence for warming of the global climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2013, p. 3). Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2013, p. 4). The general climate trend for North America includes increases in mean annual temperatures and precipitation and the increased likelihood of extreme weather events by the mid-21st century (IPCC 2014, pp. 1452-1456). The U.S. National Climate Assessment predicts that over the next century, the eastern United States will experience: (1) An increase in the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves; (2) a decrease in the frequency, intensity, and duration of cold air outbreaks; (3) an increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events; (4) an increase in the risk of seasonal droughts; and (5) an increase in the strength of tropical storms (Melillo
An increasingly large body of scientific research indicates climate change poses a significant threat to a variety of species and ecosystems (Thomas,
Perhaps the most obvious and direct effect of climate change to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is an increase in average ambient air temperature, which by 2050 is predicted to rise by 1.9 to 2.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (3.4 to 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) within the ranges of these species (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 20; Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire; KCWCS 2013, p. 13). As ambient air temperatures increase, stream water temperatures are also expected to rise, although the precise relationship between air temperature and water temperature may vary based on a variety of factors, such as groundwater inflow, riparian
While crayfish are considered relatively tolerant to temperature fluctuations, data indicate that the upper incipient lethal temperature (the temperature at which 50 percent of the test organisms die) for stream-dwelling crayfish is about 29 to 32 °C (84 to 90 °F) (Becker
As temperature regimes within the range of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes begin to exceed their thermal optimum, it is likely that these species will attempt to adjust their ranges to locations that maintain favorable conditions. In general, ambient temperatures decrease with increasing elevation and/or latitude; therefore, we would expect these crayfishes to attempt to relocate to locations higher in elevation or higher in latitude (northerly direction in the northern hemisphere) (McDonnell
An independent assessment of the potential effects of climate change on the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes was incorporated into an Appalachian climate change vulnerability index (Young
The ranking of “highly vulnerable” for
While uncertainty exists, the best available scientific data indicate that by about 2050, climate change will alter the ambient air temperature and precipitation regimes within the already limited ranges of both the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. Such alterations will increase the likelihood that streams will experience higher incidences of temperatures above the species' thermal optimum, perhaps approaching or exceeding their upper thermal limit. Because these species have little or no ability to migrate in response to increasing stream temperatures (or other climate change-induced perturbations), we conclude there is a likelihood that climate change will act as an ongoing stressor to each species.
There are numerous active freight rail lines in the Big Sandy and Upper Guyandotte River basins (Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) 2013, p. 3-7; West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) 2013, p. 2-3; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) 2015, p. 2-5). These lines were built primarily to haul locally-mined coal to outside markets, but data indicate a shift to more freight traffic through the region, crude oil shipments from Midwest shale oil fields to eastern refineries or ports, and increased rail traffic associated with shale gas development in West Virginia (VDRPT 2013, p. 5-14; WVDOT 2013, pp. 2-57- 2-59; KTC 2015, pp. 2-23-2-24). Rail traffic in and through the region will likely vary in the short term as overall economic conditions fluctuate, but in the long term, rail traffic is expected to increase.
As described previously, because of the rugged topography of the region, these rail lines generally follow the mountain valleys and run immediately adjacent to streams and rivers, including those with current or historical records of Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish occupation. This characteristic of the rail infrastructure increases the risk to aquatic habitats in the event of accidental spills of petroleum or other hazardous materials. Between 2003 and 2012, Virginia and West Virginia reported a Statewide average of 41 and 25 train accidents per year, respectively (VDRPT 2013, p. 3-36; WVDOT 2013, p. 2-30). We do not have fine-scale (
• On March 23, 2013, a derailment in Dickenson County, Virginia, left four train cars in the Russell Fork River (which is known to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish). One of the cars reportedly leaked propionic acid, but it was not reported whether any aquatic species were affected (Morabito 2013, entire).
• On December 27, 2013, 16 train cars derailed in McDowell County, West Virginia. At least one tank car reportedly ruptured and leaked “tar” into Elkhorn Creek (an upper Tug Fork tributary not known to be occupied by the Big Sandy crayfish). It was not reported whether any aquatic species were affected (Associated Press 2013, entire).
• On April 30, 2014, 15 crude oil tank cars derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia (approximately 180 km (112 mi) east of the Upper Guyandotte River and Big Sandy River basins). Three tank cars slid into the James River, and at least one car ruptured and released approximately 29,740 gallons of oil, most of which reportedly burned. It was not reported whether any aquatic species were affected (Roanoke Times 2014, entire; VADEQ 2015, entire).
• On March 5, 2015, a train locomotive struck a boulder in Dickenson County, Virginia, causing a rupture to the locomotive's fuel tank. No fuel reportedly reached the Russell Fork (Sorrell 2015, entire).
• On February 16, 2015, a train hauling crude oil derailed near Mount Carbon, West Virginia (approximately 43 km (27 mi) north of the Upper Guyandotte River basin), and 27 tank cars derailed. Approximately 378,000 gallons of crude oil were released during the incident, but it is unclear how much oil entered the Kanawha River (most of it apparently burned). It was not reported whether any aquatic species were affected (USEPA 2015, entire; FRA 2015, entire).
While the above reports do not indicate whether aquatic species were injured, a spill report from Pennsylvania did document mortality of aquatic invertebrates. On June 30, 2006, a derailment in McKeon County, Pennsylvania, resulted in three tank cars releasing 42,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide adjacent to Sinnemahoning Portage Creek. The resulting investigation determined that 63 to 98 percent of the aquatic invertebrates were estimated to be killed over 17.7 km (11.0 mi) of Sinnemahoning Portage Creek (Hartel 2006, p.18). While this report is from outside the ranges of the Big Sandy or Guyandotte River crayfishes, it is indicative of the scale of potential lethal injury that can result from transportation spills in areas where rail lines are in close proximity to streams and rivers.
Therefore, while there is uncertainty as to the likelihood or magnitude of effects of railroad accidents, based on the best available data regarding past events coupled with estimates of future rail traffic, we conclude that railroad accidents that result in the release of petroleum or other hazardous material into streams and rivers occupied by Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfish pose an ongoing risk to each species and that this risk is expected to stay the same or increase.
The habitat of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is highly fragmented, thereby isolating the remaining populations of each species from each other. The remaining individuals are generally found in low numbers at most locations where they still exist. The level of isolation and the restricted ranges seen in each species make natural repopulation of historical habitats or other new areas following previous localized extirpations highly improbable, or perhaps impossible, without human intervention. This reduction in redundancy and representation significantly impairs the resiliency of each species and poses a threat to their continued existence. In addition, direct mortality due to crushing may have a significant effect on the Guyandotte River crayfish. Interspecific competition from other native crayfish species that are more adapted to degraded stream conditions may also act as a contributing threat to both species, as might climate change.
Based on the risk factors described above, the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are at an increased risk of extinction primarily due to land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, and subsequently degrade the stream habitat required by both species (Factor A), and due to the effects of small population size (Factor E). Other contributing factors are degraded water quality and unpermitted stream dredging (Factor A). Additional likely contributing factors are competition from other crayfish, toxic spills, and climate change (Factor E). While events such as collection (Factor B) or disease and predation (Factor C) are not currently known to affect either species, any future incidences will further reduce the resiliency of the Guyandotte River and Big Sandy crayfishes.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
As discussed above, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information and data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish. The primary threat of rangewide habitat loss and degradation (Factor A) is occurring from land-disturbing activities that increase erosion and sedimentation, which degrades the stream habitat required by both species. Identified sources of ongoing erosion include active surface coal mining, commercial forestry, unstable stream channels, unpaved roads, gas and oil development, and road construction. An additional primary threat specific to the Guyandotte River crayfish is the operation of ORVs in and adjacent to Pinnacle Creek, one of only two known stream locations for the species.
Contributing threats to both species include water quality degradation (Factor A) resulting from abandoned coal mine drainage; untreated (or poorly treated) sewage discharges; road runoff; unpermitted stream dredging; and potential catastrophic spills of coal slurry, fluids associated with gas well development, or other contaminants. The effects of habitat loss have resulted in a significant range contraction for the Guyandotte River crayfish and a reduction in abundance and distribution within the fragmented range for both species, as evidenced by the results from multiple survey efforts. While the 2015 surveys did document two additional occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in the lower Tug Fork, those occurrences are isolated from other occurrences of the species. Occurrences of both species are correlated with higher quality habitat conditions that are fragmented by natural and human-mediated areas of lower quality habitat.
Despite the existing State wildlife laws and Federal regulations such as the CWA and SMCRA, habitat threats continue to effect these species (Factor D). Additionally, the habitat of the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes is highly fragmented by natural and human-mediated conditions, thereby isolating the remaining populations of each species (Factor E) from each other. The remaining individuals are found in low numbers at most locations where they still exist; however, there are some occurrences of the Big Sandy crayfish in the Russell Fork with higher levels of documented individuals and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) results that are indicative of more robust populations. The two populations of the Guyandotte River crayfish have limited redundancy, with the Pinnacle Creek location being highly imperiled by ORV use and upstream mining operations, and significantly reduced representation. The level of isolation and the restricted range of each species make natural repopulation of historical habitats or other new areas following previous localized extirpations virtually impossible without human intervention. The reduction in redundancy and representation for each species impairs the Big Sandy crayfish's resiliency and significantly impairs the Guyandotte River crayfish's resiliency, and poses a threat to both species' continued existence. The interspecific competition (Factor E) from other native crayfish species (that are more adapted to degraded stream conditions) and climate change (Factor E) may act as additional stressors to the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River crayfishes. These Factor A and Factor E threats are rangewide and are not likely to be reduced in the future. Several of the Factor A and Factor E threats are likely to increase. For Factor A, these threats include oil and gas development and road construction, and for Factor E, these include extirpation and further isolation of populations. In combination, these ongoing and increasing threats are significant because they further restrict limited available habitat and decrease the resiliency of the Big Sandy crayfish and Guyandotte River crayfish within those habitats.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” As discussed above, we find that the Big Sandy crayfish is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout its entire range, and the Guyandotte River crayfish is in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting these species.
For the Big Sandy crayfish, although the species still occupies sites located throughout the breadth of its historical range, the remaining sites are reduced to primarily the higher elevations within the watersheds; the remaining habitat and most populations are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is foreseeable because most of the remaining populations are small and isolated, and there is limited potential for recolonization.
For the Guyandotte River crayfish, the species has been reduced to two locations, and its habitat and population are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to create an imminent risk of extirpation of one of the locations, thereby reducing the overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is high because the two populations are severely reduced and isolated, and have essentially no potential to be recolonized following extirpation.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the Big Sandy crayfish as a threatened species and the Guyandotte River crayfish as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6), 3(20), and 4(a)(1) of the Act. For the Guyandotte River crayfish, all of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the danger of extinction is high and immediate, thus warranting a determination as an endangered species rather than a threatened species. In contrast, for the Big Sandy crayfish, all of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the danger of extinction is foreseeable rather than immediate, thus warranting a determination as a threatened species.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Big Sandy crayfish and the Guyandotte River crayfish are threatened and endangered, respectively, throughout all of their ranges, no portion of their ranges can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
Listing a species as endangered or threatened under the Act increases recognition by Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals that the species requires additional conservation measures. These measures include recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and a final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final listing rule, additional funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets; State programs; and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Big Sandy crayfish, and the State of West Virginia will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Guyandotte River crayfish. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Big Sandy crayfish or the Guyandotte River crayfish. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Or a Federal agency may have regulatory oversight, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a section 404 CWA permit is issued; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement when a coal mining permit is issued or overseen; or the Federal Highway Administration when they assist with the funding or construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, or highways.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 17.31 for threatened wildlife, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered or threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife will apply to the Big Sandy crayfish upon the effective date of this final rule (see
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and for threatened species at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
• Normal agricultural practices, such as herbicide and pesticide use, that are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices.
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized operation of motorized equipment in stream habitats such that the operation compacts the stream bottom habitat (
(2) Unlawful destruction or alteration of the habitat of the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish (
(3) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants into waters supporting the Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or finding shelter.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the appropriate office:
• Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468; facsimile (502) 695-1024.
• Southwest Virginia Ecological Services Field Office, 330 Cummings Street, Abingdon, VA 24210; telephone (276) 623-1233; facsimile (276) 623-1185.
• West Virginia Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; telephone (304) 636-6586; facsimile (304) 636-7824.
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.
We are not aware of any Big Sandy crayfish or Guyandotte River crayfish populations on tribal lands.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Northeast Regional Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Proposed Amendments to SBIR and STTR Policy Directives.
This document proposes to revise the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program Policy Directives. Specifically, the Small Business Administration proposes to combine the two directives into one document, clarify the data rights and Phase III preference afforded to SBIR and STTR small business awardees, add definitions relating to data rights, and clarify the benchmarks for progress towards commercialization.
You must submit your comments on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AG64, by any of the following methods:
•
•
SBA will post all comments to this proposed rule on
Edsel Brown, Assistant Director, Office of Innovation, at (202) 401-6365 or
The purpose of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is to stimulate innovation in the US economy by engaging innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in Federally-funded research and research and development (R/R&D). Similarly, the purpose of the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is to foster partnerships of ideas and technologies between innovative SBCs and research institutions through Federally-funded R/R&D. Federal agency awards to SBCs pursuant to the SBIR program and awards to SBCs for cooperative R/R&D efforts with research institutions pursuant to the STTR program assist the small business and research communities by commercializing innovative technologies.
Both programs use a phased process, uniform throughout the Federal Government, to solicit proposals and award funding agreements for R/R&D to meet stated agency needs or missions. To stimulate and foster scientific and technological innovation, including increasing commercialization of Federal R/R&D, the program follows a competitive process of three phases: Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.
The Small Business Act (Act) requires that the Small Business Administration (SBA) issue a policy directive setting forth guidance to the Federal agencies participating in the SBIR and STTR programs. The Act provides SBA with broad authority to direct participating agencies in the administration of the programs. The SBIR and STTR Policy Directives outline how agencies must generally conduct their programs. Each agency, however, can tailor their program to meet the needs of the individual agency, as long as the general principles of the program set forth in the Act and directive are followed. Therefore, when incorporating SBIR and STTR policy into agency-specific regulations and procedures, agencies may develop language needed to implement the policy effectively; however, no agency may apply policies, directives, or clauses, that contradict, weaken, or conflict with the policy as stated in the directive.
SBA reviews its policy directives regularly to determine areas that need updating and further clarification. On November 7, 2014, SBA issued an advance notice of policy directive amendments and request for comments at 77 FR 66342. In this notice, SBA explained that it intended to update the directives on a regular basis and to restructure and reorganize the directives, as well as address certain policy issues relating to SBIR and STTR data rights and the issues related to SBIR and STTR Phase III work. In this notice, SBA outlined what it believes are the issues concerning data rights and Phase III awards and requested feedback on several questions posed. SBA received over thirty comments offering recommendations and providing examples of how these issues affect SBIR/STTR companies. While the comments varied on the recommendations for specific changes, they were generally in agreement that the sections of the directives relating to data rights and Phase III awards need further clarification.
With this notice, SBA is proposing to amend both the SBIR and STTR policy directives by combining the two directives into one because the general structure of both programs is the same. In addition, SBA is proposing clarification of the important issues relating to both programs concerning data rights, Phase III awards and benchmarks to commercialization achievement. Although the policy directives are intended for use by the participating agencies, SBA believes that public input on the proposed provisions from all parties involved in the program is invaluable. Therefore, SBA is soliciting public comments on these proposed amendments. A section-by-section outline of the proposed amendments is set forth below.
In this section, SBA proposes to clarify that SBA is issuing one directive for both programs and that all provisions in the directive apply to both the SBIR and STTR programs unless specifically noted otherwise.
In this section, SBA proposes to delete any references to prior fiscal years that are no longer relevant to the operation of the programs. In addition, SBA proposes to clarify that agencies must “obligate” a certain percentage of the agency's total extramural R&D obligations each fiscal year on awards to small businesses under the programs. This amendment responds to recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report titled “More Guidance and Oversight Needed to Comply with Spending and Reporting Requirements” (available at
In this section, SBA proposes to add several terms and definitions that relate to SBIR and STTR data rights. When drafting these provisions, SBA considered the fact that the SBIR and STTR programs are unique within the Federal Government. The broad intent
The purpose of SBIR and STTR data rights is to provide an incentive for small businesses to engage in government-funded innovative research and to support its potential commercialization. This incentive comes from the prospects for successful commercialization by the innovating small business through first-mover advantage, license or sale of the IP, sale of the business, or sale of its related intangible assets (intellectual capital, knowledge, innovation capacities). Legislative history of the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 stated:
Section 4(e) of the bill directs SBA to modify its policy directives so as to protect small companies in three areas. The first of these is data rights. The bill directs SBA to extend an SBIR awardee's rights to data generated in the performance of its project to 4 years (as opposed to 2 years in current law).
Lastly, of the major provisions included in this legislation, S. 856 strengthens the data rights protection for companies and research institutions that conduct STTR projects.
The Act specifically directs SBA to issue directives to the participating agencies that provide for the retention by the SBC of rights in data generated in the performance of an SBIR or STTR award.
In accordance with the Small Business Act, the policy directives currently explain that the SBC owns the data generated under the award, and that the Government has an obligation to protect the data from disclosure for at least four years. SBA recognizes that agencies with procurement and acquisition programs can face an apparent conflict between the longer term economic development goals of the programs, which depend on the ability of the participating small business to realize the commercial benefits from its new technology, and the shorter term procurement interests of the agency that focus on acquiring the technology from the SBC at a reasonable cost and controlling its development and application. In light of this potential conflict at the agency level, SBA must ensure that agency practices related to their acquisition programs do not weaken or undermine the effectiveness of the program at stimulating innovation and economic development through small business. SBA must ensure that SBIR/STTR data are properly handled at all times. At the same time, SBA recognizes the mutual benefits involved in administering the programs within procurement agencies and has proposed mechanisms to manage these conflicting interests.
SBA's proposed amendments are based on a review of the statute, legislative history and current directives, expertise and experience at the funding agencies, and comments received from the public. SBA believes that the current directives need clarification to reflect the principles noted above and is proposing to update the directives and define several new terms at this time. The proposed terms to be defined relating to data rights include the following: Computer Database, Computer Programs, Computer Software, Computer Software Documentation, Data, Form Fit and Function Data, SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights, Operations Maintenance Installation or Training (OMIT) Data, Prototype, SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights, SBIR/STTR Data, SBIR/STTR Data Rights, SBIR/STTR Protection Period, SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights, Technical Data, and Unlimited Rights. SBA has based these definitions, to the extent practicable, on definitions used in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS).
With respect to specific definitions, SBA is proposing to clarify the definition of SBIR/STTR Data by explaining that it includes all data developed or generated in the performance of an SBIR/STTR award, including Technical Data and Computer Software.
With respect to prototypes, SBA proposes to define the term prototype to include any model, in any type of form, which is at any stage in development. SBA also proposes to clarify that the release of a prototype, other than Computer Software, to an SBIR/STTR Awardee's competitor, which may enable the competitor to dissemble the prototype and glean the protected data, is contrary to the purpose and intent of the Act, and the implementing Policy Directive. The release of a prototype during the protection period may provide the SBC's competitors with the Technical Data to enable them to commercialize the product and harm the SBC's ability to benefit from the technology. To address this concern, SBA has added to Section 8 of the Policy Directive, language notifying agencies of the potential impact of use or release during the protection period of a prototype developed under an SBIR/STTR award and requesting that agencies monitor the release and use of such prototypes.
SBA also proposes to clarify the data rights afforded the SBC and the Federal government during the statutory SBIR/STTR protection period, and after the protection period has expired, in the proposed definitions of SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights, SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights, Unlimited Rights, SBIR/STTR Protection Period, SBIR/STTR Data Rights, and SBIR/STTR Data. The current directives state that the SBC retains the rights in data for a minimum of 4 years from the date of the last deliverable. This protection period (referred to in the proposed amendments as the “SBIR/STTR protection period”) is extended with each subsequent, related, SBIR or STTR
As currently written, it would appear from the Policy Directives that the Government cannot use the data for any purpose during the protection period and then, once the protection period expires, use the data for Government purposes. The SBA does not intend for the Government to have no use of this data during the protection period; rather, it is intended that the Government have limited rights to use the data so that agencies can effectively evaluate the technology and administer their programs.
In clarifying the data rights protections, the SBA reviewed the FAR and DFARS, which outline distinct rights the Government generally receives when acquiring goods and services: Unlimited rights, limited rights and specifically negotiated rights (FAR) or government purpose rights (DFARS). Pursuant to the FAR, with unlimited rights, the Government receives rights as the name implies—unlimited use of the data, whether for Government or commercial purposes. With respect to limited rights for data other than computer software and restricted rights for computer software, the FAR provides that the Government receives the right to use the data or computer software for internal purposes only and is limited as to when third parties, including support service contractors, can access and use the data. With respect to government purpose rights, the DFARS provides that the Government receives the right to use the data for Government purposes, such as for manufacturing for Government purposes. In such cases, the Government can allow third parties to have access to the data to manufacture for Government purposes; however, the third party must sign a nondisclosure agreement and cannot use the data for its own (commercial) purposes.
In the directive, the SBA proposes that the Government receives what is referred to as SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights to Technical Data and other Data that is not Computer Software, and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights to Computer Software during the SBIR/STTR Protection Period. These limited rights are intended and designed to be similar to the rights set forth in the FAR and DFARS for for Data developed exclusively at private expense. This approach is appropriate for SBIR/STTR Data, as the goal of the program is to advance the commercialization efforts of the awardees, and thus SBA sought to provide rights in data that are comparable to the highest level of data rights protection provided by the Government. There are differences between how the FAR and DFARS defines the Government's rights in data developed exclusively at private expense. As a result, the proposed definitions of SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights and SBIR/STTR Technical Data are not exact copies of the Limited Rights Notice or Restricted Rights Notice provided in FAR 52.227-14 or the Limited Rights and Restricted Rights in DFARS 252.227-7013 and 7014. SBA is proposing single definitions that will apply to both civilian and defense agencies participating in the programs. The proposed definitions are intended to reflect the main elements of the FAR and DFARS definitions of the Government's rights in data developed exclusively at private expense, including restrictions on the rights to release and disclose that data, with the aim to encourage the awardee's pursuit and achievement of commercialization.
SBA worked closely with agency experts in developing terminology to appropriately describe the limited rights assigned to Technical Data and Computer Software. The section of the FAR related to SBIR data rights (FAR 52.227-20) does not use specific terms to describe the limited rights assigned to SBIR Data, while the DFARS (252.227-7018) uses the terminology Limited Rights and Restricted Rights.
The SBA intends that the Government retain a right to use SBIR/STTR Data during the protection period for non-commercial purposes and for project evaluation and assessment. SBA does not intend for the Government's internal use of SBIR/STTR Data to interfere with, weaken, or undermine the rights or interests of the SBC in this data. Consequently, the SBA has clarified that during the SBIR/STTR protection period, the Government is permitted some, limited or restricted, rights to use the data.
SBA proposes that the minimum length of the SBIR/STTR Protection Period be increased from 4 years to 12 years. SBA also proposes to remove the provision in Section 8 of the directive that allows a subsequent SBIR/STTR award to extend the protection period of a related, prior SBIR/STTR award. This provision currently makes it possible for the protection period to be continuously extended as long as the SBC receives Phase III work. SBA believes this current provision should be removed only if the minimum length of the protection period is increased to at least 12 years, which is three times the length of the current protection period. SBA believes that this longer period of protection will provide SBIR/STTR Awardees with sufficient opportunity to further develop and commercialize the technology represented in the protected SBIR/STTR Data. SBA notes that the 12 year period of protection is a minimum period and that agencies may choose to adopt a longer period of time at their discretion.
SBA proposes that once the SBIR/STTR Protection Period expires, the Government has Unlimited Rights in the SBIR/STTR Data. This means that, after the protection period, the Government may use the data for any activity and for any purpose, which would include a competitive procurement or foreign military sale. Granting the Government Unlimited Rights after the protection period will clarify for agencies and SBCs participating in the program that any use or disclosure of SBIR/STTR Data is permissible at that time. Currently, the data rights clause contained in the directive limits the Government's use and disclosure of SBIR/STTR Data after the protection period to Government use. The terms “Government use” and “Government purpose” are not defined in the directive or the FAR. While Government Purpose is defined in the DFARS as essentially a non-commercial use, the DFARS does not currently grant Government Purpose rights in SBIR/STTR Data either during or after the protection period. The Government generally does not operate for the purpose of creating a profit for itself or non-Government entities. As such, SBA is proposing Unlimited Rights after the protection period because this will eliminate uncertainty about, and the need to determine, whether a Government use or release after the protection period is considered a “Government Purpose” use. SBA believes these changes simplify and clarify the Government's rights in SBIR/STTR Data.
The SBA has also proposed clarifying that at any time during the SBIR/STTR Protection Period, the SBIR/STTR Awardee, or entity that holds the rights to the data, can provide the Government with greater rights, such as Unlimited Rights. However, the Government cannot negotiate these rights prior to an SBIR/STTR award and cannot make
In this section, SBA also considered whether to amend the definition of Essentially Equivalent Work to include work funded by State programs and is asking for public comment on whether this proposed amendment is appropriate. Currently, SBIR/STTR Awardees may not receive duplicate funding from federal sources for Essentially Equivalent Work. However, an awardee may receive State or other program funding for the same work to be performed under an SBIR/STTR award. Such State program funding may provide effective supplemental funding for SBIR/STTR projects, or it may tend to be redundant funding that has the effect of drawing limited State program funds away from other early-stage innovation efforts seeking funding. By including the term “State programs” in the definition of Essentially Equivalent Work, SBIR/STTR Awardees will not be allowed to receive State program funds for the same work performed under an SBIR/STTR award.
Finally, SBA proposes to delete several terms and definitions that SBA believes are common and therefore do not need to be defined in a directive. Specifically, SBA proposes to delete the following terms: Cooperative agreement, feasibility, funding agreement officer, and grant.
In this section, SBA proposes to move information concerning agency benchmarks towards commercialization to Section 6, since these benchmarks relate to eligibility. In addition, SBA proposes to clarify the preferences that agencies must afford prior Phase I or Phase II awardees with respect to Phase III awards.
The Small Business Act states that a Phase III award is one that:
(i) in which commercial applications of SBIR-funded research or research and development are funded by non-Federal sources of capital or, for products or services intended for use by the Federal Government, by follow-on non-SBIR Federal funding awards; or
(ii) for which awards from non-SBIR Federal funding sources are used for the continuation of research or research and development that has been competitively selected using peer review or merit-based selection procedures;
With respect to Phase III, Congress had directed SBA to provide, for the SBIR/STTR participating agencies:
With the Reauthorization Act, Congress amended the Small Business Act to emphasize, again, that agencies are to utilize small business Phase I or II awardees for Phase III awards, by adding another provision in the Act that states:
(4) PHASE III AWARDS.—
Therefore, if the government is interested in pursuing further work that was performed under an SBIR or STTR award, the government must, to the
As a result, SBA has proposed to explain that agencies must, to the greatest extent practicable, determine whether a requirement, solicitation or intended work either is Phase III work or includes it. If the requirement is or includes Phase III work, or if the agency is later informed that it is or includes Phase III work, SBA proposes that the agency must document that the requirement is Phase III and then evaluate the practicability (to the greatest extent) of pursuing the required work with the SBIR or STTR awardee that conducted the prior SBIR or STTR work. This would mean that the agency must first consider whether it can issue a sole source award to the Phase I or Phase II awardee. Awarding the Phase III work to the SBIR or STTR firm on a sole source basis is not practicable if, for example, the firm is no longer in business or cannot perform the work itself or with subcontractors. SBA proposes that the decision by the agency that it is not practicable to issue a sole award to the SBIR/STTR Awardee must be documented in the contract file and a copy of that decision, including the rationale, provided to SBA.
SBA received some comments from the public concerning other preferences that may be afforded to SBIR/STTR Awardees for Phase III. As a result, SBA proposes that if the agency determines that it cannot issue a sole source award for the Phase III, then it must consider whether there are other ways to provide the preference to the SBIR/STTR Awardee such as, for example, including a brand-name requirement for the SBIR/STTR Awardee's deliverable within its solicitation when appropriate or including an evaluation factor for prime contractors or evaluation points for prime contractors that utilize SBIR/STTR Awardees. Unless the agency finds that it is not practicable to pursue the Phase III work with the SBIR or STTR Awardee, the agency must provide a preference and must always consider issuing a sole source award first and foremost when providing this preference.
In addition to clarifying the Phase III preference, SBA has proposed clarifications to the notice and appeal procedures with respect to Phase III awards or non-awards. As noted above, SBA has proposed that the agency must notify SBA when it does not intend to issue a Phase III award and then SBA can file a notice of intent to appeal and then the actual appeal.
In light of the foregoing, SBA also proposes to clarify paragraph (c)(3) concerning the competitions requirements for Phase III awards. Specifically, SBA proposes that if a Justification and Approval are required by the procuring agency for a Phase III sole source, the agency can state that the SBIR/STTR Phase III award is derived from, extends, or completes efforts made under prior SBIR/STTR funding agreements issued competitively and sole source awards are authorized pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 638(r)(4).
SBA has proposed deleting the requirement that a SBC can partner with only one research institution under the STTR program. SBA believes that a small business can partner with more than one research institution under the STTR program as long as at least 30% of the work under the award is performed by a single partnering research institution. For example, if the SBC is performing 40% of the work itself and subcontracting 30% to the single research institution, the SBC may subcontract the remaining 30% to one or more other research institutions or to another entity.
SBA has also proposed moving the agency benchmark performance requirements from Section 3 to this section of the directive. The benchmark performance requirements, set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638qq, are designed to ensure a minimum degree of awardee progress towards commercialization. Specifically, the Act requires that agencies establish standards, or benchmarks, to measure: (1) The success of Phase I awardees in receiving Phase II awards, and (2) the success of Phase I awardees in receiving Phase III awards. Agencies have established these benchmarks, which were published in the
SBA has proposed clarifying when SBA calculates awardee progress towards meeting the benchmark rates, that each agency determines whether a Phase I applicant meets both of its benchmarks, and that the details regarding agency benchmark rates and the implementation of this requirement are available to the public on
SBA proposed allowing participation by Tribally-owned SBIR/STTR applicants and awardees. Section 9 of the Small Business Act does not prohibit participation by small business concerns that are owned and controlled by Indian Tribes and it was never the intent of SBA to exclude participation of these entities in these small business innovation programs.
SBA proposed modifying the section on Dollar Value of Awards to state that SBA will review the effects of inflation on the guideline amounts annually to determine if program-wide changes in the amounts are warranted, and will post the inflation amounts and any adjustments to the guideline amount on
SBA's proposed amendments to this section clarify the main elements of the SBIR/STTR Data Rights, the SBIR/STTR Protection Period, and the terms and conditions that must be set forth in the SBIR/STTR solicitation and award as it relates to data rights. The proposed changes in this section relate to the proposed amendments to the data rights definitions contained in Section 3. SBA notes that while the Government receives SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights in marked SBIR/STTR Data, these rights are intended to provide a level of protection similar to that which is provided to data an agency receives that was developed exclusively at private expense. SBA also clarifies in this section that SBIR/STTR Data Rights may be negotiated; however, an agency must not make issuance of an SBIR/STTR award conditional upon the small business negotiating or consenting to negotiate modification or transfer of these rights.
Section 8 is also revised to remove the provision that a subsequent SBIR/STTR award extends the protection period of a related prior award. The Policy Directive currently states: “Agencies are released from obligation to protect SBIR data upon expiration of the protection period except that any such data that is also protected and referenced under a subsequent SBIR award must remain protected through the protection period of that subsequent SBIR award.” This policy poses administrative challenges for the funding agencies to determine, prior to the release of SBIR/STTR Data, whether or not a subsequent award exists that extends the Government's obligation to protect that data. SBA believes that, if this extension provision is removed, an increase in the minimum required protection period from 4 years to 12 years provides an awardee firm with sufficient time to take measures to protect the data or utilize it to its commercial advantage.
This section also contains the proposed terms of the non-disclosure agreement that must be entered between the Government and a non-Governmental entity receiving SBIR/STTR Data in accordance with the Government's limited rights in that data. The proposed requirements are that the non-Governmental entity: (1) Understands and acknowledges the limitations on the Government's access, use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, transmission, display or disclosure as set forth in the agreement; (2) is prohibited from further releasing, disclosing, or using the data without the written permission of the SBIR/STTR Awardee; (3) agrees to destroy or return to the Government all SBIR/STTR Data, and all copies in its possession, at or before the time specified in the agreement, and to notify the procuring agency that all copies have been destroyed or returned; (4) is prohibited from using the data for a commercial purpose; and (5) agrees that the SBIR/STTR Data will be accessed and used for the sole purpose of providing impartial advice or technical assistance directly to the Government. The directives do not currently require that a Government contractor with access to SBIR/STTR Data enter a nondisclosure agreement, however, SBA believes this is necessary to ensure that any non-Governmental entity recipient of the data understands the limitations on the use and disclosure of SBIR/STTR Data. These requirements were modeled off of the nondisclosure agreement requirements contained in the DFARS and FAR for contractor access to SBIR/STTR Data.
SBA proposes to limit the time period during which an SBIR/STTR Awardee may correct markings of SBIR/STTR Data or add omitted markings to SBIR/STTR Data. Currently, there is no time limit on when an awardee may correct or add omitted markings to its data. Several of the funding agencies expressed concern that having no time limit can create administrative burdens and noted that there is a 6-month time limit to correct or add protective markings on data delivered by awardees outside the SBIR/STTR program, including other SBCs. We are proposing a 6-month time period from the date the data was delivered during which an
SBA has also proposed language to be included in section 8 of the directive to reflect its concern regarding the treatment of prototypes, other than Computer Software, that are developed under an SBIR/STTR award. SBA states that agencies should handle such prototypes with caution to prevent the potential disclosure of the innovative technology or data developed under an SBIR/STTR award. While a prototype may not itself be considered SBIR/STTR Data because it is not “recorded information,” it may be possible under certain circumstances for an agency or non-Government entity to glean protected aspects through observation or reverse engineering.
SBA proposes moving information in Appendix X relating to the National Academy of Sciences study to this section.
In this section, SBA proposes to amend the title to clarify that the section relates to all reporting requirements required by statute. SBA also proposes to delete references to reports that were due in 2012 and 2014 and therefore are no longer relevant.
10. In addition, SBA has proposed deleting any references to TechNet and replacing them with “
SBA proposes amending the certifications that small businesses must submit prior to, upon and after an SBIR/STTR award. Specifically, SBA proposes combining the SBIR and STTR certifications into one and noting on the document those paragraphs that are applicable to STTR only. In addition, SBA has proposed clarifying the certification to ensure the Federal government is not funding projects where other funding has covered the same work, including State grants.
SBA also proposes clarifying the Instructions set forth in the Policy Directive and adding a specific model clause that must be reflected in all solicitations and resulting funding agreements to ensure the SBIR/STTR Awardee's data rights are protected. This proposed model clause would ensure that data rights are applied consistently throughout the Federal government.
The proposed clause sets forth the pertinent terms and definitions relating to data rights, which are also set forth and defined in Section 3 of the directive. In addition, the proposed clause in Appendix I states that the awardee small business owns the data developed or generated during the award, defines the protection period during which the Government has SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights in the data, and states that the Government has Unlimited Rights upon expiration of the protection period. The proposed clause requires the awardee to mark its protected data, which is the current practice in the Federal government.
SBA is proposing to remove this appendix of database codes from the directive and to instead maintain a current list of the database codes on
SBA is proposing to remove this list of examples of performance metrics and to instead maintain a current example list, in addition to the required metrics, as a ready reference on
SBA worked with the various SBIR and STTR participating agencies to gather input and feedback and issued an advanced notice seeking comments on the topics presented in this notice. SBA now requests comments on the specific amendments proposed.
In particular, SBA is requesting feedback on its proposed clarification of the Government's SBIR/STTR data rights in SBIR/STTR Data during an SBIR/STTR Protection Period of not less than 12 years. SBA is interested in whether the public believes that these limitations on the Government's use and disclosure are sufficient to protect SBIR/STTR Data from use or release that could harm the ability of the awardee to benefit commercially from its SBIR/STTR work. Similarly, do the rights in SBIR/STTR Data that are proposed create potential adverse impacts on the Government's research and development goals? Has SBA achieved a sufficient balance between the interests of the SBIR/STTR awardees and the Government during the protection period by proposing rights in data that are similar to the Government's rights in data developed exclusively at private expense? SBA also seeks input on whether the proposed minimum length of the protection period is appropriate to achieve the policy goals associated with protecting SBIR/STTR Data. If the public feels that the proposed SBIR/STTR Data Rights and protection period do not adequately protect SBIR/STTR Data, please provide alternative suggestions and a rationale for their adoption.
Additionally, SBA seeks comment on its proposal that the Government receives Unlimited Rights in the SBIR/STTR Data following the expiration of the protection period. Is there a specific need to protect SBIR/STTR Data from the Government's commercial use of such data after the protection period? If so, please provide examples of when the Government has used such data for commercial purposes to the disadvantage of the SBIR/STTR Awardee and alternatives to Unlimited Rights.
SBA is also specifically seeking comments on its proposal to eliminate the extension of the protection period when a subsequent, related SBIR/STTR award is made. Will the elimination of this policy create unforeseen harm to SBIR/STTR Awardees even if the protection period is increased to a minimum of 12 years? If so, explain any perceived negative effect of this proposed policy change, given the longer protection period. SBA also seeks alternative approaches that would address the current administrative burden on agencies to determine whether data may be released when subsequent awards are made by different agencies.
Additionally, SBA specifically requests comments on the proposed language added to section 8 regarding prototypes. SBA is concerned that agencies may reverse engineer, use, and release prototypes other than software, or enable others to do so, for any purpose and at any time because agencies do not consider prototypes to be within the definition of SBIR/STTR Data, and as a result do not consider prototypes protected by SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights. The concept of a prototype or item appears distinguishable from the concept of data, as defined in the FAR and DFAR as “recorded information.” SBA is concerned that even though participating agencies do not consider prototypes to be “recorded information,” a prototype may be reverse engineered to reveal the innovative technology developed by the SBIR/STTR Awardee in its performance
SBA is also seeking public comment on the proposed establishment of a time limit of 6 months for SBIR/STTR Awardees to correct or add omitted markings on SBIR/STTR Data it has delivered. Does this present a significant challenge or hardship for the Awardee?
SBA will review and consider all comments received to determine whether amendments are needed to improve the general conduct of the programs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(a) Sections 9(j) and 9(p) of the Small Business Act (Act) require that the Small Business Administration (SBA) issue Policy Directives for the general conduct of the SBIR and STTR programs within the Federal Government.
(b) This Policy Directive fulfills SBA's statutory obligation to provide guidance to the participating Federal agencies for the general operation of the SBIR and STTR programs. Because most of the policy for the SBIR and STTR program is the same, SBA issues a single Policy Directive for both programs. Unless one of the programs is specifically mentioned, the term “program” or “programs” refers to both the SBIR and STTR programs. In addition, “SBIR/STTR” is used throughout to refer to both programs.
(1) The following sections pertain only to the STTR program: § 3(ff)—Definition of “Research Institution,” § 7(k)—Management of the STTR Project, § 8(c)—Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights in STTR Award, and § 12(e)—Phase 0 Proof of Concept Partnership Pilot Program.
(2) The following sections pertain only to the SBIR program: § 3(b)—Definition of “Additionally Eligible State,” § 3(l)—Definition of “Covered Small Business,” § 4(b)(1)(ii)—Direct to Phase II Awards, § 6(a)(6)—Majority-Owned by Multiple VCOCs, Hedge Funds or Private Equity Firms, § 6(b)(1)(ii)—Registration and Certifications for Proposal and Award for Majority-Owned by Multiple VCOCs, Hedge Funds or Private Equity Firms, and Appendix I—Certifications for Proposal and Award for Majority-Owned by Multiple VCOCs, Hedge Funds or Private Equity Firms.
(3) Additional or modified instructions may be issued by SBA as a result of public comment or experience. With this directive, SBA fulfills the statutory requirement to simplify and standardize the program proposal, selection, contracting, compliance, and audit procedures for the programs to the extent practicable, while allowing the participating agencies flexibility in the operation of their individual programs. Wherever possible, SBA has attempted to reduce the paperwork and regulatory compliance burden on SBCs applying to and participating in the SBIR/STTR programs, while still meeting the statutory reporting and data collection requirements.
(c) The statutory purpose of the SBIR program is to strengthen the role of innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in Federally-funded research or research and development (R/R&D). Specific program purposes are to: (1) stimulate technological innovation; (2) use small business to meet Federal R/R&D needs; (3) foster and encourage participation by socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses (SDBs), and by women-owned small businesses (WOSBs), in technological innovation; and (4) increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity and economic growth.
(d) In addition to the broad goals of the SBIR program, the statutory purpose of the STTR program is to stimulate a partnership of ideas and technologies between innovative SBCs and non-profit Research Institutions. By providing awards to SBCs for cooperative R/R&D efforts with Research Institutions, the STTR program assists the U.S. small business and research communities by supporting the commercialization of innovative technologies.
(e) Federal agencies participating in the programs (participating agencies) are obligated to follow the guidance provided by this Policy Directive. Each agency is required to review its rules, policies, and guidance on the programs to ensure consistency with this Policy Directive and to make any necessary changes in accordance with each agency's normal procedures. This is
(a) The SBIR program is codified at § 9 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 638. The SBIR program is authorized until September 30, 2017, or as otherwise provided in law subsequent to that date.
(b) Each Federal agency with an extramural budget for R/R&D in excess of $100,000,000 must participate in the SBIR program and spend (obligate) the following minimum percentages of their extramural R/R&D budgets for awards to small business concerns for R/R&D under the SBIR program:
(1) not less than 2.9% of such budget in fiscal year 2015;
(2) not less than 3.0% of such budget in fiscal year 2016; and
(3) not less than 3.2% of such budget in fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year after.
A Federal agency may exceed these minimum percentages.
(c) The STTR program is also codified at § 9 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 638. The STTR program is authorized until September 30, 2017, or as otherwise provided in law subsequent to that date.
(d) Each Federal agency with an extramural budget for R/R&D in excess of $1,000,000,000 must participate in the STTR program and spend (obligate) the following minimum percentages of their extramural R/R&D budgets (obligations) on awards to small business concerns under the STTR program:
(1) not less than 0.40% of such budget in fiscal years 2014 and 2015; and
(2) not less than 0.45% of such budget in fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year after.
A Federal agency may exceed these minimum percentages.
(e) In general, each participating agency must make SBIR/STTR awards for R/R&D through the following uniform, three-phase process:
(1) Phase I awards to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.
(2) Phase II awards to further develop work from Phase I that meets particular program needs and exhibits potential for commercial application.
(3) Phase III awards where commercial applications of SBIR/STTR program-funded R/R&D are funded by non-Federal sources of capital; or where products, services or further research intended for use by the Federal Government are funded by non-SBIR/STTR sources of Federal funding.
(f) Participating agencies must report to SBA on the calculation of the agency's extramural R&D budget, for the purpose of determining SBIR/STTR program funding, within four months of enactment of each agency's annual Appropriations Act.
(g) The Act explains that agencies are authorized and directed to cooperate with SBA in order to carry out and accomplish the purpose of the programs. As a result, each participating agency shall provide information to SBA for SBA to monitor and analyze each agency's SBIR/STTR program and to report annually to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and to the House Committees on Science and Small Business. For more information on the agency's reporting requirements, including the frequency for specific reporting requirements,
(h) SBA establishes databases and Web sites to collect and maintain, in a common format, information that is necessary to assist SBCs and assess the SBIR/STTR programs.
(i) SBA implements the Federal and State Technology (FAST) Partnership Program to strengthen the technological competitiveness of SBCs, to the extent that FAST is authorized by law.
(j) The competition requirements of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 (10 U.S.C. 2302,
(1) Any Federal executive agency intending to solicit a proposal to contract for property or services valued above the amounts set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) § 5.101, must transmit a notice of the impending solicitation to the Government wide point of entry (GPE) for access by interested sources.
(2) The contracting officer must generally make available through the GPE those solicitations synopsized through the GPE, including specifications and other pertinent information determined necessary by the contracting officer.
(3) Any executive agency awarding a contract for property or services must synopsize the award through the GPE in accordance with FAR subpart 5.3.
(4) The following are exemptions from the notice publication requirements:
(i) In the case of agencies intending to solicit Phase I proposals for contracts in excess of $25,000, the head of the agency may exempt a particular solicitation from the notice publication requirements if that official makes a written determination, after consulting with the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the SBA Administrator, that it is inappropriate or unreasonable to publish a notice before issuing a solicitation.
(ii) The SBIR/STTR Phase II award process.
(iii) The SBIR/STTR Phase III award process.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(1) The Government may use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Computer Software within the Government. The Government may exercise SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights within the Government for:
(i) Use in Government computers;
(ii) Modification, adaptation, or combination with other computer software, provided that the Data incorporated into any derivative software are subject to the rights in paragraph (ee) and that the derivative software is marked as containing SBIR/STTR Data;
(iii) Archive or backup; or
(iv) Distribution of a computer program to another Government agency, without further permission of the awardee, if the awardee is notified of the distribution and the identity of the recipient prior to the distribution, and a copy of the SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights included in the funding agreement is provided to the recipient.
(2) The Government shall not release, disclose, or permit access to SBIR/STTR Data that is Computer Software for commercial, manufacturing, or procurement purposes without the written permission of the awardee. The Government shall not release, disclose, or permit access to SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government without the written permission of the awardee unless:
(i) The non-Governmental entity has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the Government that complies with the terms for such agreements outlined in section 8 of this Policy Directive; and
(ii) The release or disclosure is—
(A) To a Government support service contractor for purposes of supporting Government internal use or activities, including evaluation, diagnosis and correction of deficiencies, and adaptation, combination, or integration with other Computer Software provided that SBIR/STTR Data incorporated into any derivative software are subject to the rights in paragraph (ee); or
(B) Necessary to support certain narrowly-tailored essential Government activities for which law or regulation permits access of a non-Government entity to a contractors' data developed exclusively at private expense, non-SBIR/STTR Data, such as for emergency repair and overhaul.
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
(ii)
(1) The Government may, use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data within the Government; however, the Government shall not use, release, or disclose the data for procurement, manufacture or commercial purposes; or release or disclose the SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government except as permitted by paragraph (2) below or by written permission of the awardee.
(2) SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data may be released outside the Government without any additional written permission of the awardee only if the non-Governmental entity or foreign government has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the Government that complies with the terms for such agreements outlined in section 8 of this Policy Directive and the release is:
(i) Necessary to support certain narrowly-tailored essential Government activities for which law or regulation permits access of a non-Government entity to a contractors' data developed exclusively at private expense, non-SBIR/STTR Data, such as for emergency repair or overhaul;
(ii) To a Government support services contractor in the performance of a Government support services contract and the release is not for commercial purposes or manufacture;
(iii) To a foreign government for purposes of information and evaluation if required to serve the interests of the U.S. Government; or
(iv) To non-Government entities or individuals for purposes of evaluation.
(jj)
(kk)
(ll)
(mm)
(nn)
(oo)
(1) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the
(2) the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Department of Defense;
(3) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Department of Energy;
(4) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(5) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(6) the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Program of the National Institutes of Health; and
(7) the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) of the Department of Agriculture.
(pp)
(qq)
(rr)
(ss)
The SBIR/STTR programs employ a phased process, uniform throughout the Federal Government, of soliciting proposals and awarding funding agreements for R/R&D, production, services, or any combination, to meet stated agency needs or missions. Agencies must issue SBIR/STTR awards pursuant to competitive and merit-based selection procedures. Agencies may not use investment of venture capital or investment from hedge funds or private equity firms as a criterion for an SBIR/STTR award. Although matching funds are not required for Phase I or Phase II awards, agencies may require a small business to have matching funds for certain special awards (
(a)
(1) Several different proposed solutions to a given problem may be funded.
(2) Proposals will be evaluated on a competitive basis. Agency criteria used to evaluate SBIR/STTR proposals must give consideration to the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposal along with its potential for commercialization. Considerations may also include program balance with respect to market or technological risk or critical agency requirements.
(3) Agency benchmarks for progress towards commercialization must be met to be eligible to participate in Phase I of the program.
(4) Agencies may require the submission of a Phase II proposal as a deliverable item under Phase I.
(b)
(1) The object of Phase II is to continue the R/R&D effort from the completed Phase I. Unless an exception set forth in paragraphs (i) or (ii) below applies, only SBIR/STTR Phase I awardees are eligible to participate in Phase II.
(i) A Federal agency may issue an SBIR Phase II award to an STTR Phase I awardee to further develop the work performed under the STTR Phase I award. Similarly, an agency may issue an STTR Phase II award to an SBIR Phase I awardee to further develop the work performed under the SBIR Phase I award. The agency must base its decision upon the results of work performed under the Phase I award and the scientific and technical merit and commercial potential of the Phase II proposal. The Phase I awardee must meet the eligibility and program requirements of the Phase II program from which it will receive the award in order to receive the Phase II award.
(ii) [SBIR only] During fiscal years (FY) 2012 through 2017, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Education (DoEd) may issue a Phase II SBIR award to a small business concern that did not receive a Phase I SBIR award for that R/R&D. Prior to such an award, the heads of those agencies, or designees, must issue a written determination that the small business has demonstrated the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the ideas that appear to have commercial potential. The determination must be submitted to SBA prior to issuing the Phase II award.
(2) Funding must be based upon the results of work performed under a Phase I award and the scientific and technical merit, feasibility and commercial potential of the Phase II proposal. Phase II awards may not necessarily complete the total research and development that may be required to satisfy commercial or Federal needs beyond the SBIR/STTR program. The Phase II funding agreement with the awardee may, at the discretion of the awarding agency, establish the procedures applicable to Phase III agreements. The Government is not obligated to fund any specific Phase II proposal.
(3) The SBIR/STTR Phase II award decision process requires, among other things, consideration of a proposal's commercial potential. Commercial potential includes the potential to transition the technology to private sector applications, Government applications, or Government contractor applications. Commercial potential in a Phase II proposal may be evidenced by:
(i) the SBC's record of successfully commercializing SBIR/STTR or other research;
(ii) the existence of Phase II funding commitments from private sector or other non-SBIR/STTR funding sources;
(iii) the existence of Phase III, follow-on commitments for the subject of the research; and
(iv) other indicators of commercial potential of the idea.
(4) Agencies may not use an invitation, pre-screening, or pre-selection process for eligibility for Phase II. Agencies must note in each
(5) A Phase II awardee may receive one additional, sequential Phase II award to continue the work of an initial Phase II award. The additional, sequential Phase II award has the same guideline amounts and limits as an initial Phase II award.
(6) Agencies may offer special SBIR/STTR awards, such as Phase IIB awards, that supplement or extend Phase II awards. For example, some agencies administer Phase IIB awards that differ from the base Phase II in that they require third party matching of the SBIR/STTR funds. Each such supplemental award must be linked to a base Phase II award (the initial Phase II, or the second sequential Phase II award). Any SBIR/STTR funds used for such special or supplementary awards are aggregated with the amount of the base Phase II to determine the size of that Phase II award. Therefore, while there is no limit on the number of such special/supplementary awards, there is a limit on the total amount of SBIR/STTR funds that can be administered through them—the amounts of these awards count towards the size of the initial Phase II or the sequential Phase II, each of which has a guideline amount of $1 million and a limit of $1.5 million. (Note that Phase IIB awards under the NIH SBIR program are administered as second, sequential Phase II awards, not supplemental awards. As such, they are base Phase II awards and subject to the Phase II guideline amounts and limits of $1 million and $1.5 million).
(7) A concern that has received a Phase I award from an agency may receive a subsequent Phase II award from another agency if each agency makes a written determination that the topics of the relevant awards are the same and both agencies report the awards to the SBA including a reference to the related Phase I award and initial Phase II award if applicable.
(8) Agencies may issue Phase II awards for testing and evaluation of products, services, or technologies for use in technical or weapons systems.
(c)
(1)
(i) Commercial application (including testing and evaluation of products, services or technologies for use in technical or weapons systems) of SBIR/STTR-funded R/R&D that is financed by non-Federal sources of capital. (Note: The guidance in this Policy Directive regarding SBIR/STTR Phase III pertains to the non-SBIR/STTR federally-funded work described in (ii) and (iii) below. It does not address private agreements an SBIR/STTR firm may make in the commercialization of its technology, except for a subcontract to a Federal contract that may be a Phase III.).
(ii) SBIR/STTR-derived products or services intended for use by the Federal Government, funded by non-SBIR/STTR sources of Federal funding.
(iii) Continuation of SBIR/STTR work, funded by non-SBIR/STTR sources of Federal funding.
(2)
(3)
(4) Phase III work may be for products, production, services, R/R&D, or any such combination.
(5) There is no limit on the number, duration, type, or dollar value of Phase III awards made to a business concern. There is no limit on the time that may elapse between a Phase I or Phase II award and Phase III award, or between a Phase III award and any subsequent Phase III award. A Federal agency may enter into a Phase III SBIR/STTR agreement at any time with a Phase II awardee. Similarly, a Federal agency may enter into a Phase III SBIR/STTR agreement at any time with a Phase I awardee. A subcontract to a Federally-funded prime contract may be a Phase III award.
(6)
(7)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) The steps the agency has taken to fulfill the special acquisition requirement (
(B) The reasons why a follow-on funding agreement with the SBIR/STTR Awardee is not practicable (
(C) The identity of the entity with which the agency intends to make an award to perform the research, development, or production; the type of funding agreement to be used; and the amounts of the agreement.
(v)
(A) If SBA receives an agency's notice of intent to make an award under (iv) above, SBA may file a notice of intent to appeal with the funding agreement officer no later than 5 business days after receiving the agency's notice of intent to make award.
(B) If an agency is pursuing work that SBA has determined is Phase III work and has not complied with either of the reporting requirements above, SBA may notify the agency at any time of its intent to appeal the decision to proceed with the work. SBA makes such determinations based on all information it receives, including information presented directly to SBA by an SBIR/STTR Awardee.
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The Act requires simplified, standardized and timely SBIR/STTR solicitations and for agencies to use a “uniform process” minimizing the regulatory burden for SBCs. Therefore, the instructions in Appendix I to this Policy Directive purposely depart from normal Government solicitation format and requirements.
(2) Agencies must update SBIR.gov with information on each solicitation and modification no later than 5 days after the date of release of the solicitation or modification to the public. This must include any update to the Web site link for the program solicitation.
(3) SBA does not intend that the SBIR/STTR program solicitation replace or be used as a substitute for unsolicited proposals for R/R&D awards to SBCs. In addition, the SBIR/STTR program solicitation procedures do not prohibit other agency R/R&D actions with SBCs that are carried on in accordance with applicable statutory or regulatory authorizations.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(i) Before permitting participation in the SBIR program by SBCs that are owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, the SBIR agency must submit a written determination to SBA, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the House Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology at least 30 calendar days before it begins making awards to such SBCs. The determination must be made by the head of the Federal agency or designee and explain how awards to such SBCs in the SBIR program will:
(A) induce additional venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity firm funding of small business innovations;
(B) substantially contribute to the mission of the Federal agency;
(C) address a demonstrated need for public research; and
(D) otherwise fulfill the capital needs of small business concerns for additional financing for SBIR projects.
(ii) The SBC that is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms must register with SBA in the Company Registry Database, at
(iii) The SBC that is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms must submit a certification with its proposal stating, among other things, that it has registered with SBA.
(iv) Any agency that makes an award under this paragraph during a fiscal year shall collect and submit to SBA data relating to the number and dollar amount of Phase I awards, Phase II awards, and any other category of awards by the Federal agency under the SBIR program during that fiscal year.
(v) If an agency awards more than the percentage of the funds authorized under section 6(a)(6) of the Policy Directive, the agency shall transfer from its non-SBIR and non-STTR R&D funds to the agency's SBIR funds any amount that is in excess of the authorized amount. The agency must transfer the funds not later than 180 days after the date on which the Federal agency made the award that exceeded the authorized amount.
(vi) If a Federal agency makes an award under a solicitation more than 9 months after the date on which the period for submitting applications under the solicitation ends, a Covered Small Business Concern is eligible to receive the award, without regard to whether it meets the eligibility requirements of the program for a SBC
(7)
(i) Before making a new Phase I award to an awardee that has won multiple prior SBIR/STTR awards, each agency must establish benchmarks for progress towards commercialization and determine whether an applicant meets those benchmarks. Agencies must apply two SBA-approved performance standards (benchmarks) addressing an awardee's progress towards commercialization: a Phase II Transition Rate that sets a minimum required rate of progress from Phase I to Phase II over a specified period, and a Commercialization Rate Benchmark that sets the minimum commercialization results an awardee must have realized from its prior SBIR/STTR awards over a specified period.
(ii) If an awardee fails to meet either of the benchmarks, that awardee is not eligible for a new Phase I award (and any new Phase II award issued pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(1)(ii)) for a period of one year from the time of the determination.
(iii) For each benchmark, agencies establish a threshold number of prior awards an awardee must have won for the benchmark requirement to be applied.
(iv) Using information received from the agencies and from SBIR/STTR Awardees, SBA identifies the companies that have won more than the threshold number of awards and calculates the Phase II Transition Rates and Commercialization Rates for those companies. The results of this assessment are used by each agency to determine if a company fails to meet a benchmark rate and is therefore not eligible for a new Phase I award. Agencies must notify SBA of any applications denied because of failure to meet the benchmarks. The assessment results and eligibility determinations are not made public. Participating agencies and SBA officials view the results through secure user accounts on
(v) Current details of these requirements and the implementation processes used by the agencies are posted on
(b)
(1)
(i) Each applicant must register in SBA's Company Registry Database at
(ii) Agencies may request the SBIR/STTR applicant to submit a certification at the time of submission of the application, which requires the applicant to state that it intends to meet the size, ownership and other requirements of the SBIR/STTR program at the time of award of the funding agreement, if selected for award.
(iii) [SBIR Only] For those agencies using the authority under section 6(a)(6) of the Directive, each Phase I and Phase II applicant that is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms is required to submit a specific certification with its SBIR application to the SBIR agency (
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(3)
Because the Act requires a “simplified, standardized funding process,” specific attention must be given to the following areas of SBIR/STTR program administration:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) must issue a notice to an applicant for each proposal submitted stating whether it was recommended or not for award no more than one year after the closing date of the solicitation. NIH and NSF agencies should issue the award no more than 15 months after the closing date of the solicitation. Pursuant to paragraph (iii) below, NIH and NSF are encouraged to reduce these timeframes.
(ii) All other participating agencies must issue a notice to an applicant for each proposal submitted stating whether it was recommended or not for award no more than 90 calendar days after the closing date of the solicitation. Agencies should issue the award no more than 180 calendar days after the closing date of the solicitation.
(iii) Agencies are encouraged to develop programs or measures to reduce the time periods between the close of a Phase I solicitation/receipt of a Phase II application and notification to the applicant as well as the time to the issuance of the Phase I and Phase II awards. As appropriate, agencies should adopt accelerated proposal, evaluation, and selection procedures designed to address the gap in funding these competitive awards to meet or reduce the timeframes set forth above. With respect to Phase II awards, SBA recognizes that Phase II arrangements between the agency and applicant may require more detailed negotiation to establish terms acceptable to both parties; however, agencies must not sacrifice the R/R&D momentum created under Phase I by engaging in unnecessarily protracted Phase II proceedings.
(iv)
(A) If the agency determines that it requires additional time between the solicitation closing date and the notification of recommendation for award, it must submit a written request for an extension to SBA. The written request must specify the number of additional calendar days needed to issue the notice for a specific applicant and the reasons for the extension. If an agency believes it will not meet the timeframes for an entire solicitation, the request for an extension must state how many awards will not meet the statutory timeframes, as well as the number of additional calendar days needed to issue the notice and the reasons for the extension. The written request must be submitted to SBA at least 10 business days prior to when the agency must issue its notice to the applicant. Agencies must send their written request to: Office of Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416. Phone: (202) 205-6450. Fax: (202) 205-7754. Email:
(B) SBA will respond to the request for an extension within 5 business days, as practicable. SBA may authorize an agency to issue the notice up to 90 calendar days after the timeframes set forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii).
(C) Even if SBA grants an extension of time, the SBIR/STTR agency is required to develop programs or measures to reduce the time periods between the close of a Phase I solicitation/receipt of a Phase II application and notification to the applicant as well as the time to the issuance of the Phase I and Phase II awards as set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(3) above.
(D) If an SBIR/STTR agency does not receive an extension of time, it may still proceed with the award to the small business and must complete the requirements in (C) above.
(2)
(i) The standardized SBIR/STTR program solicitation must advise Phase I applicants that additional information may be requested by the awarding agency to evidence awardee responsibility for project completion and advise applicants of the proposal evaluation criteria for Phase I and Phase II.
(ii) The SBIR/STTR agency will provide information to each Phase I awardee considered for a Phase II award regarding Phase II proposal submissions, reviews, and selections.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) SBIR/STTR Awardees may be paid under an applicable, authorized progress payment procedure or in accordance with a negotiated/definitized price and payment schedule. Advance payments are optional and may be made under appropriate law. In all cases, agencies must make payment to recipients under SBIR/STTR funding agreements in full, subject to audit, on or before the last day of the 12-month period beginning on the date of completion of the funding agreement requirements.
(2) All SBIR/STTR funding agreements must use, as appropriate, current cost principles and procedures authorized for use by the participating agencies. By the time of award, agencies must have informed each Awardee of the applicable Federal regulations and procedures that refer to the costs that, generally, are allowable under funding agreements.
(3) Agencies must, to the extent possible, attempt to shorten the amount of time between the notice of an award under the SBIR/STTR program and the subsequent release of funding with respect to the award.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(h)
(1) In keeping with the legislative intent to make a large number of relatively small awards, modification of funding agreements to increase the dollar amount should be kept to a minimum, except for options in original Phase I or II awards.
(2)
(3)
(i)
(1) Generally, a Phase I award (including modifications) may not exceed $150,000 and a Phase II award (including modifications) may not exceed $1,000,000. Agencies may issue an award that exceeds these award guideline amounts by no more than 50%.
(2) SBA reviews these amounts every year for the effects of inflation and posts these inflation effects and any resulting adjustments on
(3) There is no dollar limit associated with Phase III SBIR/STTR awards.
(4) Agencies may request a waiver to exceed the award guideline amounts established in paragraph (i)(1) by more than 50% for a specific topic. Agencies must submit this request for a waiver to SBA prior to release of the solicitation, contract award, or modification to the award for the topic. The request for a waiver must explain and provide evidence that the limitations on award size will interfere with the ability of the agency to fulfill its research mission through the SBIR or STTR program; that the agency will minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the number of awards that exceed the guideline amounts by more than 50%; and that research costs for the topic area differ significantly from those in other areas. After review of the agency's justification, SBA may grant the waiver for the agency to exceed the award guidelines by more than 50% for a specific topic. SBA will issue a decision on the request within 10 business days. The waiver will be in effect for one fiscal year.
(5) Agencies must maintain information on all awards exceeding the guidelines set forth in paragraph (i)(1), including the amount of the award, a justification for exceeding the guidelines for each award, the identity and location of the awardee, whether the awardee has received any venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity firm investment, and whether the awardee is majority-owned by multiple VCOCs, hedge funds, or private equity firms.
(6) The award guidelines do not prevent an agency from funding SBIR/STTR projects from other (non-SBIR/STTR) agency funds. Non-SBIR/STTR funds used on SBIR/STTR efforts do not count toward the award guidelines set forth in (i)(1).
(j)
(k)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(A) An SBC retains title and ownership of all SBIR/STTR Data it develops or generates in the performance of an SBIR/STTR award. The SBC retains all rights in SBIR/STTR Data that are not granted to the Government in accordance with this Policy Directive. These rights of the SBC do not expire.
(B) The Government receives SBIR/STTR Data Rights during the SBIR/STTR Protection Period on all appropriately marked SBIR/STTR Data. These rights enable the Federal Government to use SBIR/STTR Data in limited ways within the Government, such as for project evaluation purposes, but are intended to prohibit uses and disclosures that can result in the disclosure of the SBIR/STTR Data that may undermine the SBC's future commercialization of the associated technology. The Government receives Unlimited Rights in all unmarked data.
(C) After the SBIR/STTR Protection Period has expired, the Federal Government receives Unlimited Rights in SBIR/STTR Data that was subject to SBIR/STTR Data Rights during the protection period. Unlimited Rights allows for any type of use or release of the SBIR/STTR Data within the Government, and permits the Government to release SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government, and to authorize others to use that data, for any purpose.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(A) Specially Negotiated Licenses Authorized Only After Award. An agency must not, in any way, make issuance of an SBIR/STTR award conditional upon the Awardee negotiating or consenting to negotiate a specially negotiated license or other agreement regarding SBIR/STTR Data. The negotiation of any such specially negotiated license agreements shall be permitted only after award.
(B) Following issuance of an SBIR/STTR award, the Awardee may enter into a written agreement with the awarding agency to modify the license rights that would otherwise be granted to the agency during the Protection Period. However, any such agreement must be entered into voluntarily and by mutual agreement of the SBIR/STTR Awardee and agency, and not a condition for additional work under the funding agreement or the exercise of options. Such a bilateral data rights agreement must be entered into only after the subject SBIR/STTR award (which award must include an appropriate SBIR/STTR Data Rights clause) has been signed. Any such specially negotiated license must be in writing under a separate agreement after the SBIR/STTR funding agreement is signed. A decision by the awardee to relinquish, transfer, or modify in any way its rights in SBIR/STTR Data must be made without pressure or coercion by the agency or any other party. Any provision in a competitive non-SBIR or SBIR solicitation that would have the effect of diminishing SBIR/STTR Data Rights shall have no effect on the provision of SBIR/STTR Data Rights in a resulting Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III award.
(7)
(c)
(1) Understands, acknowledges, and agrees that it's use, modification, reproduction, release, display, disclosure, and distribution of the SBIR/STTR Data is permitted only for the specific activities authorized by the NDA (which must be authorized by SBIR/STTR Data Rights, or otherwise authorized by the SBIR/STTR Awardee);
(2) Is prohibited from further using, modifying, reproducing, releasing, displaying, disclosing, or distributing the data unless it receives the written permission of the Government (when authorized by the SBIR/STTR Awardee) or the written permission of the SBIR/STTR Awardee;
(3) Agrees to destroy (or return to the Government at the request of the Government), all SBIR/STTR Data, and all copies in its possession, at or before the time specified in the agreement, and to notify the procuring agency that all copies have been destroyed (or returned as requested by the Government);
(4) Is prohibited from using the data for a commercial purpose unless it receives the written permission of the Government (when authorized by the SBIR/STTR Awardee) or the written permission of the SBIR/STTR Awardee itself; and
(5) Ensures that its employees, subcontractors, and other entities that are authorized to receive SBIR/STTR Data are bound by use and nondisclosure restrictions consistent with the NDA prior to being provided access to such SBIR/STTR Data.
(d)
(1) An SBC, before receiving an STTR award, must negotiate a written agreement between the SBC and the partnering Research Institution, allocating intellectual property rights and rights, if any, to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The SBC must submit this agreement to the awarding agency with the proposal. The SBC must certify in all proposals that the agreement is satisfactory to the SBC.
(2) The awarding agency may accept an existing agreement between the two parties if the SBC certifies its satisfaction with the agreement, and such agreement does not conflict with the interests of the Government. SBA will provide a model agreement to be adopted by the agencies and used as guidance by the SBC in the development of an agreement with the Research Institution. The model agreement will direct the parties to, at a minimum:
(A) State specifically the degree of responsibility, and ownership of any product, process, or other invention or innovation resulting from the cooperative research. The degree of responsibility shall include responsibility for expenses and liability, and the degree of ownership shall also include the specific rights to revenues and profits.
(B) State which party may obtain United States or foreign patents or otherwise protect any inventions resulting from the cooperative research.
(C) State which party has the right to any continuation of research, including non-STTR follow-on awards.
(3) The Government will not normally be a party to any agreement between the SBC and the Research Institution. Nothing in the agreement is to conflict with any provisions setting forth the respective rights of the United States and the SBC with respect to intellectual property rights and with respect to any right to carry out follow-on research.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) A Phase I funding agreement must state that the awardee shall submit a new certification as to whether it is in compliance with specific SBIR/STTR program requirements at the time of final payment or disbursement.
(2) A Phase II funding agreement must state that the awardee shall submit a new certification as to whether it is in compliance with specific SBIR/STTR program requirements prior to receiving more than 50% of the total award amount and prior to final payment or disbursement.
(3) Agencies may also require additional certifications at other points in time during the life cycle of the funding agreement, such as at the time of each payment or disbursement.
(k)
(l)
(a)
(1) Unilaterally determine the categories of projects to be included in its SBIR/STTR program, giving consideration to maintaining a portfolio balance between exploratory projects of high technological risk and those with greater likelihood of success. Further, to the extent permitted by the law, and in a manner consistent with the mission of that agency and the purpose of the SBIR/STTR program, each Federal agency must:
(i) give priority in the SBIR/STTR program to manufacturing-related research and development in accordance with Executive Order 13329. In addition, agencies must develop an Action Plan for implementing Executive Order 13329, which identifies activities used to give priority in the SBIR/STTR program to manufacturing-related research and development. These activities should include the provision of information on the Executive Order on the agency's SBIR/STTR program Web site.
(ii) give priority to small business concerns that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects.
(iii) give consideration to topics that further one or more critical technologies as identified by the National Critical Technologies panel (or its successor) in reports required under 42 U.S.C. 6683, or the Secretary of Defense in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2522.
(2) Release SBIR/STTR solicitations in accordance with the SBA master schedule.
(3) Unilaterally receive and evaluate proposals resulting from program solicitations, select awardees, issue funding agreements, and inform each awardee under such agreement, to the extent possible, of the expenses of the awardee that will be allowable under the funding agreement.
(4) Require a succinct commercialization plan with each proposal submitted for a Phase II award.
(5) Collect and maintain information from applicants and awardees and provide it to SBA to develop and maintain the database, as identified in § 11(c) of this Policy Directive.
(6) Administer its own SBIR/STTR funding agreements or delegate such administration to another agency.
(7) Include provisions in each SBIR/STTR funding agreement setting forth the respective rights of the United States and the awardee with respect to intellectual property rights and with respect to any right to carry out follow-on research.
(8) Ensure that the rights in data developed under each Federally-funded SBIR/STTR Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III award are protected properly.
(9) Make payments to awardees of SBIR/STTR funding agreements on the basis of progress toward or completion of the funding agreement requirements and in all cases make payment to awardees under such agreements in full, subject to audit, on or before the last day of the 12-month period beginning on the date of completion of such requirements.
(10) Provide an annual report on the SBIR/STTR program to SBA, as well as other information concerning the SBIR/STTR program.
(11) Include in its annual performance plan required by 31 U.S.C. 1115(a) and (b) a section on its SBIR/STTR program, and submit such section to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and to the House Committees on Science, Space and Technology and Small Business.
(12) Establish the agency's benchmarks for progress towards commercialization and include the information necessary to implement the benchmarks in each solicitation.
(b)
(1) Agencies may enter into agreements with vendors to provide technical assistance to SBIR/STTR Awardees, which may include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies or access to technical and business literature available through on-line data bases. Each agency may select a vendor for a term not to exceed 5 years. The vendor must be selected using competitive and merit-based criteria.
(i) The purpose of this technical assistance is to assist SBIR/STTR Awardees in:
(A) making better technical decisions on SBIR/STTR projects;
(B) solving technical problems that arise during SBIR/STTR projects;
(C) minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR/STTR projects; and
(D) commercializing the SBIR/STTR product or process.
(ii) An agency may not enter into a contract with the vendor if the contract amount provided for technical assistance is based upon the total number of Phase I or Phase II awards, but may enter into a contract with the vendor based upon the total amount of awards for which assistance is provided.
(2) Each agency may provide up to $5,000 of SBIR/STTR funds for the technical assistance described above in (b)(1) per year for each Phase I award and each Phase II award. The amount will be in addition to the award and will count as part of the agency's SBIR/STTR funding, unless the agency funds the technical assistance using non-SBIR/STTR funds. The agency may not use SBIR/STTR funds for technical assistance unless the vendor provides the services to the SBIR/STTR Awardee.
(3) An SBIR/STTR applicant may acquire the technical assistance services set forth in (b)(1)(i) above itself and not through the vendor selected by the Federal agency. The applicant must request this authority from the Federal agency and demonstrate in its SBIR/STTR application that the individual or entity selected can provide the specific technical services needed. If the awardee demonstrates this requirement sufficiently, the agency shall permit the awardee to acquire such technical assistance itself, in an amount up to $5,000, as an allowable cost of the SBIR/STTR award. The per year amount will be in addition to the award and will count as part of the agency's SBIR/STTR funding, unless the agency funds the technical assistance using non-SBIR/STTR funds.
(c) Agencies must publish the information relating to timelines for awards of Phase I and Phase II funding agreements and performance start dates of the funding agreements that are reported to SBA in the agency's Annual Report (
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1) Each SBIR/STTR agency must expend the required minimum percent of its extramural budget on awards to SBCs. Agencies may not make available for the purpose of meeting the minimum percent an amount of its extramural budget for basic research that exceeds the minimum percent. Funding agreements with SBCs for R/R&D that result from competitive or single source selections other than an SBIR/STTR program must not be considered to meet any portion of the required minimum percent.
(2) An agency must not use any of its SBIR/STTR budget for the purpose of funding administrative costs of the program, including costs associated with program operations, employee salaries, and other associated expenses, unless the exception in paragraph (3) below or § 12(b)(4)(ii) applies.
(3)
(i) A Federal agency may use this money to fund the following specific activities:
(A) SBIR and STTR program administration, which includes:
(I) internal oversight and quality control, such as verification of reports and invoices and cost reviews, and waste/fraud/abuse prevention (including targeted reviews of SBIR or STTR awardees that an agency determines are at risk for waste/fraud/abuse);
(II) carrying out any activities associated with the participation by small businesses that are majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds or private equity firms;
(III) contract processing costs relating to the SBIR or STTR program of that agency, which includes supplementing the current workforce to assist solely with SBIR or STTR funding agreements;
(IV) funding of additional personnel to work solely on the SBIR/STTR program of that agency, which includes assistance with application reviews; and
(V) funding for simplified and standardized program proposal, selection, contracting, compliance, and audit procedures for the SBIR/STTR program, including the reduction of paperwork and data collection.
(B) STTR or SBIR program-related outreach and related technical assistance initiatives not in effect prior to commencement of this pilot, except significant expansion or improvement of these initiatives, including:
(I) technical assistance site visits;
(II) personnel interviews;
(III) national conferences;
(C) Commercialization initiatives not in effect prior to commencement of this pilot, except significant expansion or improvement of these initiatives.
(D) For DoD and the military departments, carrying out the Commercialization Readiness Program set forth in 12(b) of this directive, with emphasis on supporting new initiatives that address barriers in bringing SBIR/STTR technologies to the marketplace, including intellectual property issues, sales cycle access issues, accelerated technology development issues, and other issues.
(ii) Agencies must use this money to attempt to increase participation by SDBs and WOSBs in the SBIR/STTR program, and small businesses in states with a historically low level of SBIR/STTR awards. The agency may submit a written request to SBA to waive this requirement. The request must explain why the waiver is necessary, demonstrate a sufficient need for the waiver, and explain that the outreach objectives of the agency are being met and that there has been increased participation by small businesses in states with a historically low level of SBIR/STTR awards.
(iii) SBA will establish performance criteria each fiscal year by which use of these funds will be evaluated for that fiscal year. The performance criteria will be metrics that measure the performance areas required by statute against the goals set by the agencies in their work plans. The performance criteria will be based upon the work plans submitted by each agency for a given fiscal year and will be agency-specific. SBA will work with the SBIR/STTR agencies in creating a simplified template for agencies to use when making their work plans.
(iv) Each agency must submit its work plan to SBA at least 30 calendar days prior to the start of each fiscal year for which the pilot program is in operation. Agency work plans must include the following: a prioritized list of initiatives to be supported; the estimated percentage of administrative funds to be allocated to each initiative or the estimated amounts to be spent on each initiative; milestones for implementing the initiatives; the expected results to be achieved; and the assessment metrics for each initiative. The work plan must identify initiatives that are above and beyond current practice and which enhance the agency's SBIR/STTR program.
(v) SBA will evaluate the work plan and provide initial comments within 15 calendar days of receipt of the plan. SBA's objective in evaluating the work plan is to ensure that, overall, it provides for improvements to the SBIR/STTR program of that particular agency. If SBA does not provide initial comments within 30 calendar days of receipt of the plan, the work plan is deemed to be approved. If SBA does submit initial comments within 30 calendar days, agencies must amend or supplement their work plan and resubmit to SBA. Once SBA establishes the agency-specific performance criteria to measure the benefits of the use of these funds under the work plan, the
(vi) Agencies must coordinate any activities in the work plan that relate to fraud, waste, and abuse prevention, targeted reviews of awardees, and implementation of oversight control and quality control measures (including verification of reports and invoices and cost reviews) with the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG). If the agency allocates more than $50,000,000 to its SBIR program for a fiscal year, the agency may share this funding with its OIG when the OIG performs the activities.
(vii) Agencies shall report to the Administrator on use of funds under this authority as part of the SBIR/STTR Annual Report.
(4) An agency must not issue an SBIR/STTR funding agreement that includes a provision for subcontracting any portion of that agreement back to the issuing agency, to any other Federal Government agency, or to other units of the Federal Government, except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) below. SBA may issue a case-by-case waiver to this provision after review of an agency's written justification that includes the following information:
(i) An explanation of why the SBIR/STTR research project requires the use of the Federal facility or personnel, including data that verifies the absence of non-federal facilities or personnel capable of supporting the research effort.
(ii) Why the Agency will not and cannot fund the use of the federal facility or personnel for the SBIR/STTR project with non-SBIR/STTR money.
(iii) The concurrence of the SBC's chief business official to use the federal facility or personnel.
(5) An agency may issue an SBIR/STTR funding agreement to a small business concern that intends to enter into an agreement with a Federal laboratory to perform portions of the award or has entered into a cooperative research and development agreement (
(i) The agency may not require that the small business concern enter into an agreement with any Federal laboratory to perform any portion of an SBIR/STTR award, as a condition for an SBIR/STTR award.
(ii) The agency may not issue an SBIR/STTR award or approve an agreement between an SBIR/STTR Awardee and a Federal laboratory if the small business concern will not meet the minimum performance of work requirements set forth in § 6(a)(4) of this directive.
(iii) The agency may not issue an SBIR/STTR award or approve an agreement between an SBIR/STTR Awardee and a Federal laboratory that violates any SBIR/STTR requirement set forth in statute or the Policy Directive, including any SBIR/STTR data rights protections.
(iv) The agency and Federal laboratory may not require any SBIR/STTR Awardee that has an agreement with the Federal laboratory to perform portions of the activities under the SBIR/STTR award to provide advance payment to the Federal laboratory in an amount greater than the amount necessary to pay for 30 days of such activities.
(6) No agency, at its own discretion, may unilaterally cease participation in the SBIR/STTR program. R/R&D agency budgets may cause fluctuations and trends that must be reviewed in light of SBIR/STTR program purposes. An agency may be considered by SBA for a phased withdrawal from participation in the SBIR/STTR program over a period of time sufficient in duration to minimize any adverse impact on SBCs. However, the SBA decision concerning such a withdrawal will be made on a case-by-case basis and will depend on significant changes to extramural R/R&D 3-year forecasts as found in the annual Budget of the United States Government and National Science Foundation breakdowns of total R/R&D obligations as published in the Federal Funds for Research and Development. Any withdrawal of an SBIR/STTR agency from the SBIR/STTR program will be accomplished in a standardized and orderly manner in compliance with these statutorily mandated procedures.
(7) Federal agencies not otherwise required to participate in the SBIR/STTR program may participate on a voluntary basis. Federal agencies seeking to participate in the SBIR/STTR program must first submit their written requests to SBA. Voluntary participation requires the written approval of SBA.
(f)
(1) Agencies shall evaluate risks of fraud, waste, and abuse in each application, monitor and administer SBIR/STTR awards, and create and implement policies and procedures to prevent fraud, waste and abuse in the SBIR/STTR program. To capitalize on OIG expertise in this area, agencies must consult with their OIG when creating such policies and procedures. Fraud includes any false representation about a material fact or any intentional deception designed to deprive the United States unlawfully of something of value or to secure from the United States a benefit, privilege, allowance, or consideration to which an individual or business is not entitled. Waste includes extravagant, careless, or needless expenditure of Government funds, or the consumption of Government property, that results from deficient practices, systems, controls, or decisions. Abuse includes any intentional or improper use of Government resources, such as misuse of rank, position, or authority or resources. Examples of fraud, waste, and abuse relating to the SBIR/STTR program include, but are not limited to:
(i) misrepresentations or material, factual omissions to obtain, or otherwise receive funding under, an SBIR/STTR award;
(ii) misrepresentations of the use of funds expended, work done, results achieved, or compliance with program requirements under an SBIR/STTR award;
(iii) misuse or conversion of SBIR/STTR award funds, including any use of award funds while not in full compliance with SBIR/STTR program requirements, or failure to pay taxes due on misused or converted SBIR/STTR award funds;
(iv) fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in applying for, carrying out, or reporting results from an SBIR/STTR award;
(v) failure to comply with applicable federal costs principles governing an award;
(vi) extravagant, careless, or needless spending;
(vii) self-dealing, such as making a sub-award to an entity in which the PI has a financial interest;
(viii) acceptance by agency personnel of bribes or gifts in exchange for grant or contract awards or other conflicts of interest that prevents the Government from getting the best value; and
(ix) lack of monitoring, or follow-up if questions arise, by agency personnel to ensure that awardee meets all required eligibility requirements, provides all required certifications, performs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award, and performs all work proposed in the application.
(2) At a minimum, agencies must:
(i) Require certifications from the SBIR/STTR Awardee at the time of award, as well as after award and during the funding agreement lifecycle (
(ii) Include on their respective SBIR/STTR Web page and in each solicitation, information explaining how an individual can report fraud, waste and abuse as provided by the agency's OIG (
(iii) Designate at least one individual in the agency to, at a minimum, serve as the liaison for the SBIR/STTR program, the OIG and the agency's Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO) and ensure that inquiries regarding fraud, waste and abuse are referred to the OIG and, if applicable, the SDO.
(iv) Include on their respective SBIR/STTR Web page information concerning successful prosecutions of fraud, waste and abuse in the SBIR or STTR programs.
(v) Establish a written policy requiring all personnel involved with the SBIR/STTR program to notify the OIG if anyone suspects fraud, waste, and/or abuse and ensure the policy is communicated to all SBIR/STTR personnel.
(vi) Create or ensure there is an adequate system to enforce accountability (through suspension and debarment, fraud referrals or other efforts to deter wrongdoing and promote integrity) by developing separate standardized templates for a referral made to the OIG for fraud, waste and abuse or the SDO for other matters, and a process for tracking such referrals.
(vii) Ensure compliance with the eligibility requirements of the program and the terms of the SBIR/STTR funding agreement.
(viii) Work with the agency's OIG with regard to its efforts to establish fraud detection indicators, coordinate the sharing of information between Federal agencies, and improve education and training to SBIR/STTR program officials, applicants and awardees;
(ix) Develop policies and procedures to avoid funding essentially equivalent work already funded by another agency, which could include: searching SBIR.GOV prior to award for the applicant (if a joint venture, search for each party to the joint venture), key individuals of the applicant, and similar abstracts; using plagiarism or other software; checking the SBC's certification prior to award and funding and documenting the funding agreement file that such certification evidenced the SBC has not already received funding for essentially equivalent work; reviewing other agency's policies and procedures for best practices; and reviewing other R&D programs for policies and procedures and best practices related to this issue; and
(x) Consider enhanced reporting requirements during the funding agreement.
(g)
(1) The
(2) Federal agency flexibility in establishing Phase I and II award sizes, including appropriate criteria for exercising such flexibility;
(3) Commercialization assistance best practices of Federal agencies with significant potential to be employed by other agencies and the appropriate steps to achieve that leverage, as well as proposals for new initiatives to address funding gaps that business concerns face after Phase II but before commercialization.
(4) The need for a standard evaluation framework to enable systematic assessment of SBIR and STTR, including through improved tracking of awards and outcomes and development of performance measures for the SBIR program and STTR program of each Federal agency.
(5) Outreach and technical assistance activities that increase the participation of small businesses underrepresented in the SBIR and STTR programs, including the identification and sharing of best practices and the leveraging of resources in support of such activities across agencies.
(h)
(1) Prior to and during the period of study, and to ensure that the concerns of small business are appropriately considered, NAS shall consult with and consider the views of SBA's Office of Investment and Innovation and the Office of Advocacy and other interested parties, including entities, organizations, and individuals actively engaged in enhancing or developing the technological capabilities of small business concerns.
(2) The head of each agency with a budget of more than $50,000,000 for its SBIR program for fiscal year 1999 shall, in consultation with SBA, and not later than 6 months after December 31, 2011, cooperatively enter into an agreement with NAS regarding the content and performance of the study. SBA and the agencies will work with the Interagency Policy Committee in determining the parameters of the study, including the specific areas of focus and priorities for the broad topics required by statute. The agreement with NAS must set forth these parameters, specific areas of focus and priorities, and comprehensively address the scope and content of the work to be performed. This agreement must also require the NAS to ensure there is participation by and consultation with, the small business community, the SBA, and other interested parties as described in paragraph (1).
(3) NAS shall transmit to SBA, heads of agencies entering into an agreement under this section, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Small Business of the Senate a copy of the report, which includes the results and recommendations, not later than 4 years after December 31, 2011, and every subsequent four years.
(a)
(1) SBA is required to collect data from agencies and report to the Congress information regarding applications by and awards to SBCs by each Federal agency participating in the SBIR/STTR program. Participating agencies report data using standardized templates that are provided, maintained, and updated by SBA on
(2) The Act requires a “simplified, standardized and timely annual report” from each Federal agency participating in the SBIR/STTR program (
(3) To meet these requirements, the SBIR/STTR program has the following key principles:
(i) Make updating data available electronically;
(ii) Centralize and share certain data through secure interfaces to which only authorized government personnel have access;
(iii) Have small business enter the data only once, if possible; and
(iv) Provide standardized procedures.
(b)
(1) The Act requires that SBA coordinate the implementation of electronic databases at the SBIR/STTR agencies, including the technical ability of the agencies to share the data. In addition, the Act requires the reporting of various data elements, which are clustered together in the following subsections:
(i) Solicitations Database (to include the Master Schedule);
(ii)
(A) Company Registry Database;
(B) Application Information Database;
(C) Award Information Database;
(D) Commercialization Database;
(E) Annual Report Database; and
(F) Other Reporting Requirements Database.
(2) The subsections below describe the data reporting requirements, including reporting mechanisms, the frequency of data collection and reporting, and whether this information is shared publicly or is protected and only available to authorized personnel. The table below summarizes the data collection requirements for each database; however, there may be some divergences at the individual data field level. Refer to Appendix II the detailed reporting requirements at the data field level. SBA notes that in fiscal year 2012, SBA began a phased implementation of this data collection.
(3) SBIR/STTR Awardees will have user names and passwords assigned in order to access their respective awards information in the system. Award and commercialization data maintained in the database can be changed only by the awardee, SBA, or the awarding SBIR/STTR Federal agency.
(c)
(1) SBA posts an electronic Master Schedule of release dates of program solicitations with links to Internet Web sites of agency solicitations on
(i) On or before August 1, each agency representative must notify SBA in writing or by email of its proposed program solicitation release and proposal due dates for the next fiscal year. SBA and the agency representatives will coordinate the resolution of any conflicting agency solicitation dates by the second week of August. In all cases, SBA will make final decisions. Agencies must notify SBA in writing of any subsequent changes in the solicitation release and close dates.
(ii) For those agencies that use both general topic and more specific subtopic designations in their SBIR/STTR solicitations, the topic data should accurately describe the research solicited.
(iii) Agencies must post on their Internet Web sites the following information regarding each program solicitation:
(A) list of topics upon which R/R&D proposals will be sought;
(B) Agency address, phone number, or email address from which SBIR/STTR program solicitations can be requested or obtained, especially through electronic means;
(C) names, addresses, and phone numbers of agency contact points where SBIR/STTR-related inquiries may be directed;
(D) release date(s) of program solicitation(s);
(E) closing date(s) for receipt of proposals; and
(F) estimated number and average dollar amounts of Phase I awards to be made under the solicitation.
(2) SBA will manage a searchable public database that contains all solicitation and topic information from all SBIR/STTR agencies. Agencies are required to update the Solicitations Database, (available at
(i) type of solicitation—SBIR/STTR;
(ii) Phase—I or II;
(iii) topic description;
(iv) sub-topic description;
(v) Web site for further information; and
(vi) applicable contact information per topic or sub-topic, where applicable and allowed by law.
(d)
(1) SBA maintains and manages a company registry to track ownership and affiliation requirements for all companies applying to the SBIR/STTR program, including those that are majority-owned by multiple VCOCs, private equity firms, or hedge funds.
(2) Each SBC applying for a Phase I or Phase II award must register on
(3) Data collected in the Company Registry Database will not be shared publicly. Refer to Appendix II for details on specific fields shared publicly.
(4) The SBC will save its information from the registration in a .pdf document
(5) Refer to Appendix II for the required reporting fields. The main data requirements include:
(i) basic identifying information for the SBC;
(ii) the number of employees for the SBC;
(iii) whether the SBC has venture capital, hedge fund or private equity firm investment and if so, include:
(A) the percentage of ownership of the awardee held by the VCOC, hedge fund or private equity firm;
(B) the registration by the SBC of whether or not it is majority-owned by VCOCs, hedge funds, or private equity firms. Please note that this may be auto-populated through the individual calculations of investments in the SBC already submitted.
(iv) information on the affiliates of the SBC, including:
(A) the names of all affiliates of the SBC;
(B) the number of employees of the affiliates;
(e)
(1) SBA will manage an Application Information Database on information on applications to the SBIR/STTR program across agencies.
(2) Each agency must upload application data to the Application Database at www.SBIR.gov at least quarterly.
(3) The data in the applicant database is only viewable to authorized government officials and not shared publicly.
(4) Refer to Appendix II for detailed reporting requirements. The main data requirements for each Phase I and Phase II application include:
(i) name, size, and location of the applicant, and the identifying number assigned;
(ii) an abstract and specific aims of the project;
(iii) name, title, contact information, and position in the small business of each key individual that will carry out the project;
(iv) percentage of effort each key individual identified will contribute to the project;
(v) Federal agency to which the application is made and contact information for the person responsible for reviewing applications and making awards under the program.
(5) The Application Information Database connects and cross-checks information with the Company Registry and government personnel can see connected data.
(f)
(1) SBA manages a database on awards made within the SBIR/STTR program across agencies.
(2) Each agency must update the Award Information Database quarterly, if not more frequently.
(3) Most of the data available on the Award Information Database is viewable and searchable by the public on
(4) Refer to SBIR.gov for detailed reporting requirements. The data requirements for each Phase I and Phase II award include:
(i) information similar to the Application Information Database—if not already collected;
(ii) the name, size, and location of, and the identifying number assigned;
(iii) an abstract and specific aims of the project;
(iv) the name, title, contact information, and position in the small business of each key individual that will carry out the project;
(v) the percentage of effort each identified key individual will contribute to the project;
(vi) the Federal agency making the award;
(vii) award amount;
(viii) principal investigator identifying information—including name, email address, and demographic information;
(ix) detailed information on location of company;
(x) whether the awardee:
(A) has venture capital, hedge fund or private equity firm investment and if so, the amount of such investment received by SBC as of date of award and amount of additional capital awardee has invested in SBIR/STTR technology;
(B) is a WOSB or has a woman as a principal investigator;
(C) is an SDB or has a socially and economically disadvantaged individual as a principal investigator;
(D) is owned by a faculty member or a student of an institution of higher education as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001); and
(E) has received the award as a result of the Commercialization Readiness Pilot Program for Civilian Agencies set forth in § 12(c) of the directive.
(xi) an identification of any business concern or subsidiary established for the commercial application of a product or service for which an SBIR or STTR award is made.
(5) The Award Information Database connects and cross-checks information with the Company Registry and Application Information Database, and government personnel can see connected data.
(g)
(1) The Commercialization Database stores information reported by awardees on the commercial activity resulting from their past SBIR/STTR awards.
(2) Commercialization data is inputted to this database in two ways: awardees enter their commercialization data directly into the commercialization database on www.SBIR.gov, and agencies can upload to the database at www.sbir.gov commercialization data they have collected from awardees.
(3) The Commercialization Database is currently maintained by SBA.
(4) Awardees are required to update this information on their prior Phase II awards in the Commercialization Database when submitting an application for an SBIR/STTR Phase II award and upon completion of the last deliverable for that award.
(5) Commercialization data at the company level will not be shared publicly. Aggregated data that maintains the confidentiality of companies may be reported in compliance with the statute.
(6) Refer to www.sbir.gov for the specific commercialization data reporting fields. The main data requirements include for every Phase II award:
(i) any business concern or subsidiary established for the commercial application of a product or service for which an SBIR/STTR award is made;
(ii) total revenue resulting from the sale of new products or services, or licensing agreements resulting from the research conducted under each Phase II award;
(iii) additional investment received from any source, other than Phase I or Phase II awards, to further the research and development conducted under each Phase II award;
(iv) any contract with the federal government marked as an SBIR/STTR Phase III award; and
(v) any narrative information that a Phase II awardee voluntarily submits to further describe the commercialization efforts of its awards and related research.
(7) The SBC may apportion sales or additional investment information relating to more than one Phase II award among those awards, if it notes the apportionment for each award. Companies are requested to update their records in this database on a voluntary basis for at least 5 years following the completion of award.
(8) Awardees will update their information and add project commercialization and sales data using their user names and passwords. SBA and SBIR/STTR agencies will coordinate data collection to ensure that
(9) Note that the Award Information and Commercialization Databases will contain the data necessary for agencies to determine whether an applicant meets the agency's benchmarks for progress towards commercialization.
(h)
(1) Agencies must submit their report to SBA on an annual basis and will report for the period ending September 30 of each fiscal year. The report is due to SBA no later than March 15 of each year. For example, the report for FY 2015 (October 1, 2014—September 30, 2015) must be submitted to SBA by March 15, 2016.
(2) SBA provides the Annual Report form to agencies through
(3) A number of the fields of the Annual Report template are pre-populated by SBA with data from the SBIR/STTR program database. SBA works with the agencies to resolve any data inconsistencies.
(4) The annual report includes the following:
(i) SBIR/STTR program dollars obligated through program funding agreements for Phase I, Phase II, and other uses of program funds, during the reporting fiscal year.
(ii) Number of topics and subtopics contained in each program solicitation.
(iii) Number of proposals received by the agency for each topic and subtopic in each program solicitation.
(iv) Agency total extramural R/R&D obligations for the reporting fiscal year including an explanation of its calculation and how it differs, if at all, from the amount reported to the National Science Foundation pursuant to the annual Budget of the United States Government.
(v) The minimum dollar amount the agency is required to obligate per fiscal year for the SBIR and STTR programs. This amount is calculated by applying the statutory per centum to the agency's total extramural R/R&D obligations made during the fiscal year (adjusted for the appropriate exclusions); and if the minimum amount was not met, the agency must provide the reasons why and an explanation of how the agency plans to meet the requirement in the future. Agencies may provide an explanation of the specific budgeting process their agency uses to allocate funds for the SBIR/STTR programs and describe any issues they may see with the compliance determination procedure.
(vi) For all applicants and awardees in the applicable fiscal year—where applicable, the name and address, solicitation topic and subtopic, solicitation number, project title, total dollar amount of funding agreement, and applicable demographic information. The agency is not required to re-submit applicant and award information in the annual report that it has already reported to SBA through
(vii) Justification for the award of any funding agreement exceeding the award guidelines set forth in § 7(i) of this directive, the amount of each award exceeding the guidelines, the identity and location of the awardee, whether the awardee has received any venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity firm investment, and whether the awardee is majority-owned by a venture capital operating company, hedge fund or private equity firm.
(viii) Justification for awards made under a topic or subtopic where the agency received only one proposal. Agencies must also provide the awardee's name and address, the topic or subtopic, and the dollar amount of award. Awardee information must be collected quarterly—in any case, but updated in the agency's annual reports.
(ix) All instances where the Phase II Awardee did not receive a Phase I award.
(x) All instances in which an agency pursued R/R&D, services, production, or any combination thereof of a technology developed under an SBIR/STTR award with an entity other than that Awardee.
(xi) The number and dollar value of each SBIR/STTR and non-SBIR/STTR award (includes grants, contracts and cooperative agreements as well as any award issued under the Commercialization Program) over $10,000 and compare the number and amount of SBIR/STTR awards with awards to other than SBCs.
(xii) Information relating to the pilot to allow for funding of administrative, oversight, and contract processing costs, including the money spent on each activity and any other information required in the approved work plan to measure the benefits of using these funds for the specific activities—especially, as it pertains to the goals outlined in the work plan.
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(A) a description of efforts undertaken by the agency to enhance U.S. manufacturing activities;
(B) a comprehensive description of the actions undertaken each year by the agency in carrying out the SBIR or STTR programs to support Executive Order 13329 (relating to manufacturing);
(C) an assessment of the effectiveness of the actions taken at enhancing the R&D of U.S. manufacturing technologies and processes;
(D) a description of efforts by vendors selected to provide discretionary technical assistance to help SBIR and STTR business concerns manufacture in the U.S.; and
(E) recommendations from the agency's SBIR and STTR program managers of additional actions to increase manufacturing activities in the U.S.
(xix)
(j)
(1) SBA will set forth a list of reports that agencies are required by statute to submit, in a table format, which will be available at
(2) SBA's SBIR/STTR program database will include a list of any individual or small business concern that has received an SBIR/STTR award and that has been convicted of a fraud-related crime involving SBIR/STTR funds or found civilly liable for a fraud-related violation involving SBIR/STTR funds, of which SBA has been made aware.
(3) Program Funding Compliance. Agencies must submit to SBA's Administrator, not later than 4 months after the date of enactment of its annual Appropriations Act, a report on the agency's plan to meet the program funding requirement for the current fiscal year. SBA provides detailed guidance regarding this report on
(A) an explanation of the calculation of total Extramural R/R&D including an itemization of each research program excluded from the calculation and a brief explanation of why it is excluded,
(B) a review of the agency's compliance with the funding requirement in the prior fiscal year to determine if the program funding process enabled the agency to meet the requirement, and
(C) a funding plan showing how the agency is budgeting its funds for the SBIR/STTR programs during the current fiscal year so as to meet or exceed the year's expected minimum obligations requirement for the program
(4) Agencies must provide notice to SBA of any case or controversy before any Federal judicial or administrative tribunal concerning the SBIR/STTR program of the Federal agency. This does not include agency level protests of awards unless and until the protest is before a Federal court or administrative body. The agency must provide notice to SBA within 15 business days of the agency's written notification of the case or controversy.
(5) Agencies must provide notice of all instances in which an agency pursued research, development, production, or any such combination of a technology developed by an SBC using an award made under the SBIR/STTR program of that agency, where the agency determined that it was not practicable to enter into a follow-on non-SBIR/STTR program funding agreement with that concern. The agency must provide notice to SBA within 15 business days of the agency's award. The report must include, at a minimum:
(i) the reasons why the follow-on funding agreement with the concern was not practicable;
(ii) the identity of the entity with which the agency contracted to perform the research, development, or production; and
(iii) a description of the type of funding agreement under which the research, development, or production was obtained.
(6) Agencies must provide information supporting the agency's achievement of the Interagency Policy Committee's policy recommendations on ways to improve program effectiveness and efficiency. This includes qualitative and quantitative data as appropriate, which would measure the agency's progress. The agency must provide this information to SBA at the end of each fiscal year.
(7) Agencies must provide an annual report to SBA, Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, House Committee on Small Business, and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on SBIR and STTR programs and the benefits of these programs to the United States. Prior to preparing the report, the agency shall develop metrics to evaluate the effectiveness and benefit to the United States of the SBIR and STTR programs. The metrics must be science-based and statistically driven, reflect the mission of the agency, and include factors relating to the economic impact of the programs. The report must describe in detail the agency's annual evaluation of the programs using these metrics. The final report must be posted online so it can be made available to the public.
(8) NIH, DoD and the Department of Education must provide the written determination to SBA anytime it issues a Phase II award to a small business concern that did not receive a Phase I award for that R/R&D. The determination must be submitted prior to award.
(9) SBA will compile data and report to Congress on the Federal and State Technology (FAST) Partnership Program, described in § 12 of this Policy Directive. If required by the FAST grant, the grantees will report a comprehensive list of the companies that received assistance under FAST and if those companies received SBIR or STTR awards and any information regarding mentors and Mentoring Networks, as required in the Federal and State Technology (FAST) Partnership Program.
(k)
(1) Unless stated otherwise, the information contained in the Company Registry Database, the Application Information Database, and the Commercialization Database is solely available to authorized government officials, with the approval of SBA. This includes Congress, GAO, agencies participating in the SBIR and the STTR programs, Office of Management and Budget, OSTP, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and other authorized persons who are subject to a nondisclosure agreement with the Federal Government covering the use of the databases. These databases are used for the purposes of evaluating and determining eligibility for the SBIR/STTR program, in accordance with Policy Directives issued by SBA. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 638(k)(4), certain information provided to those databases are privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (Government Organization and Employees); nor must it be considered to be publication for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) or (b).
(2) Most of the information in the Award Information and Annual Reports Databases will be available to the public. Any information that will identify the confidential business information of a given small business concern will not be disclosed to the public. Those databases are available at
(l)
(1) Agencies must request an extension for additional time between the solicitation closing date and notification of recommendation for award. SBA will respond to the request for an extension within 5 business days, as practicable.
(2) Agencies must request a waiver to exceed the award guidelines for Phase I and Phase II awards by more than 50% for a specific topic.
(3) Agencies must request a waiver to not use its SBIR funds, as part of the pilot allowing for the use of such funds for certain SBIR-related costs, to increase participation by SDBs and
(4) Agencies must request a waiver to issue a funding agreement that includes a provision for subcontracting a portion of that agreement back to the issuing agency if there is no exception to this requirement in the directive.
(a)
(1) SBA establishes policy and procedures for the program by publishing and updating the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and promulgating regulations. Policy clarification of any part or provision of the directive or regulations may be provided by SBA.
(2) It is essential that SBIR/STTR agencies do not promulgate any policy, rule, regulation, or interpretation that is inconsistent with the Act, this Policy Directive, or SBA's regulations relating to the SBIR/STTR program. SBA's monitoring activity will include review of policies, rules, regulations, interpretations, and procedures generated to facilitate intra- and interagency SBIR/STTR program implementation.
(3) Waivers providing limited exceptions to certain policies can be found at § 10 of the directive.
(b)
(1) Educating the public about the SBIR/STTR program via conferences, seminars, and presentations;
(2) Highlighting the successes achieved in the program by publishing (via press releases and
(3)
(c)
(d)
SBA is responsible for providing oversight and monitoring the implementation of the SBIR/STTR program at the agency level. This monitoring includes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Beginning with FY 2013 and ending in FY 2015 (unless otherwise extended), the Secretary of Defense and each Secretary of a military department is authorized to use its SBIR funds for administration of this program in accordance with the procedures and policies set forth in section 9(e)(3) of this directive.
(ii) In addition, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of each military department is authorized to use not more than an amount equal to 1% of its SBIR funds available to DoD or the military departments for payment of expenses incurred to administer the SBIR/STTR Commercialization Readiness Program. Such funds—
(A) shall not be subject to the limitations on the use of funds in 9(e)(2) or 9(e)(3) of this directive; and
(B) shall not be used to make Phase III awards.
(5)
(i) establish goals for the transition of Phase III technologies in subcontracting plans; and
(ii) require a prime contractor on such a contract to report the number and dollar amount of the contracts entered into by the prime contractor for Phase III projects.
(6) The Secretary of Defense shall:
(i) set a goal to increase the number of SBIR/STTR Phase II contracts that lead to technology transition into programs of record of fielded systems;
(ii) use incentives in effect as of December 31, 2011 or create new incentives to encourage agency program managers and prime contractors to meet the goal set forth in paragraph (6)(i) above; and
(iii) submit the following to SBA, as part of the annual report:
(A) the number and percentage of Phase II SBIR/STTR contracts awarded by DoD that led to technology transition into programs of record or fielded systems;
(B) information on the status of each project that received funding through the Commercialization Program and the efforts to transition these projects into programs of record or fielded systems; and
(C) a description of each incentive that has been used by DoD, the effectiveness of the incentive with respect to meeting DoD's goal to increase the number of SBIR/STTR Phase II contracts that lead to technology transition into programs of record of fielded systems, and measures taken to ensure that such incentives do not act to shift the focus of Phase II awards away from relatively high-risk innovation projects.
(c)
(1)
(i) for follow-on awards to small businesses for technology development, testing, evaluation, and commercialization assistance for SBIR or STTR Phase II technologies; or
(ii) for awards to small businesses to support the progress of research, research and development, and commercialization conducted under the SBIR or STTR programs to Phase III.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(d)
(1) any proposal to provide outreach and assistance to 1 or more SBCs interested in participating in the SBIR program, including any proposal to make a grant or loan to a company to pay a portion or all of the cost of developing an SBIR proposal, from an entity, organization, or individual located in—
(i) a State that is eligible to participate in that technology development program; or
(ii) an Additionally Eligible State.
(2) any meritorious proposal for an SBIR Phase I award that is not funded through the SBIR program for that fiscal year due to funding constraints, from an SBC located in a state identified in (i) or (ii) immediately above.
(e) [STTR only]
(1)
(2)
(i) The Director may make awards to a qualifying institution for up to $1,000,000 per year for up to 3 years.
(ii) In determining which qualifying institutions will receive pilot program grants, the Director of NIH shall consider, in addition to any other criteria the Director determines necessary, the extent to which qualifying institutions—
(A) have an established and proven technology transfer or commercialization office and have a plan for engaging that office in the program's implementation;
(B) have demonstrated a commitment to local and regional economic development;
(C) are located in diverse geographies and are of diverse sizes;
(D) can assemble project management boards comprised of industry, start-up, venture capital, technical, financial, and business experts;
(E) have an intellectual property rights strategy or office; and
(F) demonstrate a plan for sustainability beyond the duration of the funding award.
(3)
(4)
(i) The Proof of Concept Partnership shall use a market-focused project management oversight process, including—
(A) a rigorous, diverse review board comprised of local experts in translational and proof of concept research, including industry, start-up, venture capital, technical, financial, and business experts and university technology transfer officials;
(B) technology validation milestones focused on market feasibility;
(C) simple reporting effective at redirecting projects; and
(D) the willingness to reallocate funding from failing projects to those with more potential.
(ii) The Proof of Concept Partnership shall not award more than $100,000 towards an individual proposal.
(5)
(6)
(i) The funds for the pilot program shall not be used for basic research or to fund the acquisition of research equipment or supplies unrelated to commercialization activities.
(ii) The funds for the pilot program can be used to evaluate the commercial potential of existing discoveries, including proof of concept research or prototype development; and activities that contribute to determining a project's commercialization path, to include technical validations, market research, clarifying intellectual property rights, and investigating commercial and business opportunities.
(7)
a.
b.
c.
1. Program Description
2. Certifications
3. Proposal Preparation Instructions and Requirements
4. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria
5. Considerations
6. Submission of Proposals
7. Scientific and Technical Information Sources
8. Submission Forms
9. Research Topics
d.
e. Instructions for Preparation of SBIR or STTR Program Solicitation—Sections 1-9
(a) Summarize in narrative form the request for proposals and the objectives of the SBIR or STTR program.
(b) Describe in narrative form the agency's SBIR or STTR program including a description of the three phases. Note in your description whether the solicitation is for Phase I or Phase II proposals. Also note in each solicitation for Phase I, that all awardees may apply for a Phase II award and provide guidance on the procedure for doing so.
(c) Describe program eligibility.
(d) List the name, address and telephone number of agency contacts for general information on the SBIR or STTR program solicitation.
(e) Whenever terms are used that are unique to the SBIR or STTR program, a specific SBIR or STTR solicitation or a portion of a solicitation, define them or refer potential offerors/applicants to a source for the definition. At a minimum, the definitions of “funding agreement,” “R/R&D,” “SBC,” “SBIR/STTR data,” and “SBIR/STTR data rights” must be included.
(f) Include information explaining how an individual can report fraud, waste and abuse (
(a) This section must include certifying forms required by legislation, regulation or standing operating procedures, to be submitted by the applicant to the contracting or granting agency. This would include certifying forms such as those for the protection of human and animal subjects.
(b) This section must include any certifications required concerning size,
(i) The agency may request the SBIR/STTR applicant to submit a certification at the time of submission of the application or offer. The certification may require the applicant to state that it intends to meet the size, ownership and other requirements of the SBIR or STTR program at the time of award of the funding agreement, if selected for award.
(ii) The agency must request the applicant to submit a certification at the time of award and at any other time set forth in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.701-121.705. The certification will require the applicant to state that it meets the size, ownership and other requirements of the SBIR or STTR program at the time of award of the funding agreement.
(iii) The agency must request the Awardee to submit certifications during funding agreement life cycle. A Phase I funding agreement must state that the awardee shall submit a new certification as to whether it qualifies as a SBC and that it is in compliance with specific SBIR or STTR program requirements at the time of final payment or disbursement. A Phase II funding agreement must state that the awardee shall submit a new certification as to whether it qualifies as a SBC and that it is in compliance with specific SBIR or STTR program requirements prior to receiving more than 50% of the total award amount and prior to final payment or disbursement.
(iv) Agencies may require additional certifications at other points in time during the life cycle of the funding agreement, such as at the time of each payment or disbursement.
(c) The agency must use the following certification at the time of award and upon notification by SBA, must check
All small businesses that are selected for award of an SBIR/STTR funding agreement must complete this certification at the time of award and any other time set forth in the funding agreement that is prior to performance of work under this award. This includes checking all of the boxes and having an authorized officer of the awardee sign and date the certification each time it is requested.
Please read carefully the following certification statements. The Federal government relies on the information to determine whether the business is eligible for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program award. A similar certification will be used to ensure continued compliance with specific program requirements during the life of the funding agreement. The definitions for the terms used in this certification are set forth in the Small Business Act, SBA regulations (13 CFR part 121), the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and also any statutory and regulatory provisions referenced in those authorities.
If the funding agreement officer believes that the business may not meet certain eligibility requirements at the time of award, they are required to file a size protest with the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), who will determine eligibility. At that time, SBA will request further clarification and supporting documentation in order to assist in the verification of any of the information provided as part of a protest. If the funding agreement officer believes, after award, that the business is not meeting certain funding agreement requirements, the agency may request further clarification and supporting documentation in order to assist in the verification of any of the information provided.
Even if correct information has been included in other materials submitted to the Federal government, any action taken with respect to this certification does not affect the Government's right to pursue criminal, civil or administrative remedies for incorrect or incomplete information given in the certification. Each person signing this certification may be prosecuted if they have provided false information.
The undersigned has reviewed, verified and certifies that (
(1) □ The awardee business concern meets the ownership and control requirements set forth in 13 CFR 121.702.
(2) If a corporation—all corporate documents, namely: articles of incorporation and any amendments, articles of conversion, by-laws and amendments, shareholder meeting minutes showing director elections, shareholder meeting minutes showing officer elections, organizational meeting minutes, all issued stock certificates, stock ledger, buy-sell agreements, stock transfer agreements, voting agreements, and documents relating to stock options, including the right to convert non-voting stock or debentures into voting stock, must evidence that the corporation meets the ownership and control requirements set forth in 13 CFR 121.702. (Check one box).
□ Yes □ N/A Explain why N/A:
(3) If a partnership, the partnership agreement evidences that it meets the ownership and control requirements set forth in 13 CFR 121.702. (Check one box).
□ Yes □ N/A Explain why N/A:
(4) If a limited liability company—the articles of organization and any amendments, and operating agreement and amendments, evidence that it meets the ownership and control requirements set forth in 13 CFR 121.702. (Check one box).
□ Yes □ N/A Explain why N/A:
(5) The birth certificates, naturalization papers, or passports show that any individuals it relies upon to meet the eligibility requirements are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. (Check one box).
□ Yes □ N/A Explain why N/A:
(6) □ It has no more than 500 employees, including the employees of its affiliates.
(7) □ SBA has not issued a size determination currently in effect finding that this business concern exceeds the 500 employee size standard.
(8) During the performance of the award, the principal investigator will spend more than one half of his/her time as an employee of the awardee (or research institution—STTR only) or has requested and received a written deviation from this requirement from the funding agreement officer. (Check one box).
□ Yes □ Deviation approved in writing by funding agreement officer: _%
(9) All, essentially equivalent work, or a portion of the work proposed under this project (check applicable line):
□
□
□ A portion has been funded by another grant, contract, or subcontract as described in detail in the proposal and approved in writing by the funding agreement officer.
(10) During the performance of award, the awardee will perform the applicable percentage of work unless a deviation from this requirement is approved in writing by the funding agreement officer (check applicable line and fill in if needed):
□ SBIR Phase I: at least two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the research.
□ SBIR Phase II: at least half (50%) of the research.
□ STTR Phase I or Phase II: at least forty percent (40%) of the research.
□ Deviation approved in writing by the funding agreement officer: %
(11) During performance of award, the research/research and development will be performed in the United States unless a deviation is approved in writing by the funding agreement officer (check one box).
□ Yes □ Waiver has been granted
(12) □ During performance of award, the research/research and development will be performed at the awardee's facilities with its employees, except as otherwise indicated in the SBIR/STTR application and approved in the funding agreement.
(13) The SBIR awardee has registered itself on SBA's database as majority-owned by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds or private equity firms (check one box).
□ Yes □ No □ N/A Explain why N/A: ______
(14) It is a Covered Small Business Concern (a small business concern that: (a) was not majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds, or private equity firms on the date on which it submitted an application in response to an SBIR solicitation; and (b) on the date of the SBIR award, which is made more than 9 months after the closing date of the solicitation, is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms). (Check one box).
□ Yes □ No
(15) □ I will notify the Federal agency immediately if all or a portion of the work authorized and funded under this award is subsequently funded by another Federal agency.
(16) [
Yes □ No □
(17) □ I understand that the information submitted may be given to Federal, State and local agencies for determining violations of law and other purposes.
(18) □ I am an
(d) The agency must use the following certification during the lifecycle of the funding agreement in accordance with subsection 8(h) of the directive and paragraph 2(b)(iv) of this Appendix and upon notification by SBA, must check
All SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II awardees must complete this certification at all times set forth in the funding agreement (
Please read carefully the following certification statements. The Federal government relies on the information to ensure compliance with specific program requirements during the life of the funding agreement. The definitions for the terms used in this certification are set forth in the Small Business Act, the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, and also any statutory and regulatory provisions referenced in those authorities.
If the funding agreement officer believes that the business is not meeting certain funding agreement requirements, the agency may request further clarification and supporting documentation in order to assist in the verification of any of the information provided.
Even if correct information has been included in other materials submitted to the Federal government, any action taken with respect to this certification does not affect the Government's right to pursue criminal, civil or administrative remedies for incorrect or incomplete information given in the certification. Each person signing this certification may be prosecuted if they have provided false information.
The undersigned has reviewed, verified and certifies that (all boxes must be checked except where otherwise directed):
(1) The principal investigator spent more than one half of his/her time as an employee of the awardee (or research institution—STTR only) or the awardee has requested and received a written deviation from this requirement from the funding agreement officer.
□ Yes □ No □ Deviation approved in writing by funding agreement officer: _%
(2) All, essentially equivalent work, or a portion of the work performed under this project (check the applicable line):
□
□
□ A portion has been funded by another grant, contract, or subcontract as described in detail in the proposal and approved in writing by the funding agreement officer.
(3) Upon completion of the award, the awardee will have performed the applicable percentage of work, unless a deviation from this requirement is approved in writing by the funding agreement officer (check the applicable line and fill in if needed):
□ SBIR Phase I: at least two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the research.
□ SBIR Phase II: at least half (50%) of the research.
□ STTR Phase I or Phase II: at least forty percent (40%) of the research.
□ Deviation approved in writing by the funding agreement officer: %
(4) The work is completed and the small business awardee has performed the applicable percentage of work, unless a deviation from this requirement is approved in writing by the funding agreement officer (check the applicable line and fill in if needed):
□ SBIR Phase I: at least two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the research.
□ SBIR Phase II: at least half (50%) of the research.
□ STTR Phase I or Phase II: at least forty percent (40%) of the research.
□ Deviation approved in writing by the funding agreement officer: %
□ N/A because work is not completed
(5) [
Yes □ No □
(6) The research/research and development is performed in the United States unless a deviation is approved in writing by the funding agreement officer.
□ Yes □ No □ Waiver has been granted
(7) The research/research and development is performed at the awardee's facilities with its employees, except as otherwise indicated in the SBIR/STTR application and approved in the funding agreement.
□ Yes □ No
(8) □ I will notify the Federal agency immediately if all or a portion of the work authorized and funded under this award is subsequently funded by another Federal agency.
(9) □ I understand that the information submitted may be given to Federal, State and local agencies for determining violations of law and other purposes.
(10) □ I am an officer of the awardee business concern authorized to represent it and sign this certification on its behalf. By signing this certification, I am representing on my own behalf, and on behalf of the business concern, that the information provided in this certification, the application, and all other information submitted in connection with the award, is true and correct as of the date of submission. I acknowledge that any intentional or negligent misrepresentation of the information contained in this certification may result in criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including but not limited to: (1) fines, restitution and/or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001; (2) treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729
(e) [SBIR only] The agency must require any SBC that is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms to submit the following certification with its SBIR application:
Any small business that is majority-owned by multiple venture operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds or private equity firms and is submitting an application for an SBIR funding agreement must complete this certification prior to submitting an application. This includes checking all of the boxes and having an authorized officer of the applicant sign and date the certification each time it is requested.
Please read carefully the following certification statements. The Federal government relies on the information to determine whether the business is eligible for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program award and meets the specific program requirements during the life of the funding agreement. The definitions for the terms used in this certification are set forth in the Small Business Act, SBA regulations (13 CFR part 121), the SBIR Policy Directive and also any statutory and regulatory provisions referenced in those authorities.
If the funding agreement officer believes that the business may not meet certain eligibility requirements at the time of award, he/she is required to file a size protest with the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), who will determine eligibility. At that time, SBA will request further clarification and supporting documentation in order to assist in the verification of any of the information provided as part of a protest. If the funding agreement officer believes, after award, that the business is not meeting certain funding agreement requirements, the agency may request further clarification and supporting documentation in order to assist in the verification of any of the information provided.
Even if correct information has been included in other materials submitted to the Federal government, any action taken with respect to this certification does not affect the Government's right to pursue criminal, civil or administrative remedies for incorrect or incomplete information given in the certification. Each person signing this certification may be prosecuted if they have provided false information.
The undersigned has reviewed, verified and certifies that (
(1) ☐ The applicant is NOT more than 50% owned by a single VCOC, hedge fund or private equity firm.
(2) ☐ The applicant is more than 50% owned by multiple domestic business concerns that are VCOCs, hedge funds, or private equity firms.
(3) ☐ I have registered with SBA at www.SBIR.gov as a business that is majority-owned by multiple VCOCs, hedge funds or private equity firms.
(4) ☐ I understand that the information submitted may be given to Federal, State and local agencies for determining violations of law and other purposes.
(5) ☐ All the statements and information provided in this form and any documents submitted are true, accurate and complete. If assistance was obtained in completing this form and the supporting documentation, I have personally reviewed the information and it is true and accurate. I understand that, in general, these statements are made for the purpose of determining eligibility for an SBIR funding agreement and continuing eligibility.
(6) ☐ I understand that the certifications in this document are continuing in nature. Each SBIR funding agreement for which the small business submits an offer or application or receives an award constitutes a restatement and reaffirmation of these certifications.
(7) ☐ I understand that I may not misrepresent status as small business to: 1) obtain a contract under the Small Business Act; or 2) obtain any benefit under a provision of Federal law that references the SBIR program.
(8) ☐ I am an
§ 3.
(a)
(1) SBIR/STTR Phase I proposals must not exceed a total of 25 pages, including cover page, budget, and all enclosures or attachments, unless stated otherwise in the agency solicitation. Pages should be of standard size (8 1/2″ × 11″; 21.6 cm × 27.9 cm) and should conform to the standard formatting instructions. Margins should be 2.5 cm and type at least 10 point font.
(2) A notice that no additional attachments, appendices, or references beyond the 25-page limitation shall be considered in proposal evaluation (unless specifically solicited by an agency) and that proposals in excess of the page limitation shall not be considered for review or award.
(b)
(1) Agency and solicitation number or year.
(2) Topic Number or Letter.
(3) Subtopic Number or Letter.
(4) Topic Area.
(5) Project Title.
(6) Name and Complete Address of Firm.
(7) Disclosure permission (by statement or checkbox), such as follows, must be included at the discretion of the funding agency:
“Will you permit the Government to disclose your name, address, and telephone number of the corporate official of your concern, if your proposal does not result in an award, to appropriate local and State-level economic development organizations that may be interested in contacting you for further information? Yes__No__”
(8) Signature of a company official of the proposing SBC and that individual's typed name, title, address, telephone number, and date of signature.
(9) Signature of Principal Investigator or Project Manager within the proposing SBC and that individual's typed name, title, address, telephone number, and date of signature.
(10) Legend for proprietary information as described in the “Considerations” section of this program solicitation if appropriate. This may also be noted by asterisks in the margins on proposal pages.
(c)
(1) Each Phase I and Phase II applicant is required to provide information for SBA's database (
(i) Any business concern or subsidiary established for the commercial application of a product or service for which an SBIR or STTR award is made.
(ii) Revenue from the sale of new products or services resulting from the research conducted under each Phase II award;
(iii) Additional investment from any source, other than Phase I or Phase II awards, to further the research and development conducted under each Phase II award.
(iv) Update the information in the database for any prior Phase II award received by the SBC. The SBC may apportion sales or additional investment information relating to more than one Phase II award among those awards, if it notes the apportionment for each award.
(2) Each Phase II awardee is required to update the appropriate information on the award in the database upon completion of the last deliverable under the funding agreement and is requested to voluntarily update the information in the database annually thereafter for a minimum period of 5 years.
(d)
(1) Name and address of SBC.
(2) Name and title of principal investigator or project manager.
(3) Agency name, solicitation number, solicitation topic, and subtopic.
(4) Title of project.
(5) Technical abstract limited to two hundred words.
(6) Summary of the anticipated results and implications of the approach (both Phases I and II) and the potential commercial applications of the research.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(i) State the anticipated results of the proposed approach if the project is successful (Phase I and II).
(ii) Discuss the significance of the Phase I effort in providing a foundation for the Phase II R/R&D effort.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) Whether and by what means the proposed project appears to have potential commercial application.
(ii) Whether and by what means the proposed project appears to have potential use by the Federal Government.
(10)
(i) The name and address of the agencies to which proposals were submitted or from which awards were received.
(ii) Date of proposal submission or date of award.
(iii) Title, number, and date of solicitations under which proposals were submitted or awards received.
(iv) The specific applicable research topics for each proposal submitted or award received.
(v) Titles of research projects.
(vi) Name and title of principal investigator or project manager for each proposal submitted or award received.
(11)
(f)
§ 4.
(a)
“All Phase I and II proposals will be evaluated and judged on a competitive basis. Proposals will be initially screened to determine responsiveness. Proposals passing this initial screening will be technically evaluated by engineers or scientists to determine the most promising technical and scientific approaches. Each proposal will be judged on its own merit. The Agency is under no obligation to fund any proposal or any specific number of proposals in a given topic. It also may elect to fund several or none of the proposed approaches to the same topic or subtopic.”
(b)
(1) The SBIR/STTR agency must develop a standardized method in its evaluation process that will consider, at a minimum, the following factors:
(i) The technical approach and the anticipated agency and commercial benefits that may be derived from the research.
(ii) The adequacy of the proposed effort and its relationship to the fulfillment of requirements of the research topic or subtopics.
(iii) The soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution.
(iv) Qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants.
(v) Evaluations of proposals require, among other things, consideration of a proposal's commercial potential as evidenced by:
(A) the SBC's record of commercializing SBIR or other research,
(B) the existence of second phase funding commitments from private sector or non-SBIR funding sources,
(C) the existence of third phase follow-on commitments for the subject of the research, and,
(D) the presence of other indicators of the commercial potential of the idea.
(2) The factors in (b)(1) above and other appropriate evaluation criteria, if any, must be specified in the “Method of Selection” section of SBIR program solicitations.
(c)
(d)
§ 5.
(a)
(1) Approximate number of Phase I awards expected to be made.
(2) Type of funding agreement, that is, contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
(3) Whether fee or profit will be allowed.
(4) Cost basis of funding agreement, for example, fixed-price, cost reimbursement, or cost-plus-fixed fee.
(5) Information on the approximate average dollar value of awards for Phase I and Phase II.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
“Information contained in unsuccessful proposals will remain the property of the applicant. The Government may, however, retain copies of all proposals. Public release of information in any proposal submitted will be subject to existing statutory and regulatory requirements. If proprietary information is provided by an applicant in a proposal, which constitutes a trade secret, proprietary commercial or financial information, confidential personal information or data affecting the national security, it will be treated in confidence, to the extent permitted by law. This information must be clearly marked by the applicant with the term “confidential proprietary information”
`These data shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than evaluation of this proposal. It is agreed that as a condition of award of this funding agreement, the Government shall have SBIR/STTR Data Rights in properly marked data that is contained in the proposal dated_____, upon which this contract is based. However, data contained on pages___, are not subject to the Government's SBIR/STTR Data Rights.' ”
(2)
(3)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) The Government's license rights in SBIR/STTR Data during the SBIR/STTR Protection Period are as follows: SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights in SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data or any other type of Data other than Computer Software that is properly marked, and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights in SBIR/STTR Data that is Computer Software. Upon expiration of the protection period for SBIR/STTR Data, the Government's obligation to protect that data expires and the Government's rights in that data convert to Unlimited Rights. The Government receives Unlimited Rights in all unmarked data.
(B) An Awardee retains title and ownership of all SBIR/STTR Data it develops or generates in the performance of an SBIR or STTR Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III award (including a Phase III award that is a subcontract or subgrant), and retains all rights in SBIR/STTR Data not granted to the Government. These of the Awardee rights do not expire.
(5)
(A) The Government may, use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data within the Government; however, the Government shall not use, release, or disclose the data for procurement, manufacturing, or commercial purposes; or release or disclose the SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government except as permitted by paragraph (2) below or by written permission of the awardee.
(B) SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data may be released outside the Government without any additional written permission of the awardee only if the non-Governmental entity or foreign government has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the Government that complies with the terms for such agreements outlined in section 8 of this Policy Directive and the release is:
(i) Necessary to support certain narrowly-tailored essential Government activities for which law or regulation permits access of a non-Government entity to a contractors' data developed exclusively at private expense, non-SBIR/STTR Data, such as for emergency repair or overhaul;
(ii) To a Government support services contractor in the performance of a Government support services contract and the release is not for commercial purposes or manufacture;
(iii) To a foreign government for purposes of information and evaluation if required to serve the interests of the U.S. Government; or
(iv) To non-Government entities or individuals for purposes of evaluation.
(6)
(A) The Government may use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Computer Software within the Government. The Government may exercise SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights within the Governmen for:
(1) Use in Government computers;
(2) Modification, adaptation, or combination with other computer software, provided that the Data incorporated into any derivative software are subject to the rights in paragraph (ee) and that the derivative software is marked as containing SBIR/STTR Data;
(3) Archive or backup; or
(4) Distribution of a computer program to another Government agency, without further permission of the awardee, if the awardee is notified of the distribution and the identity of the recipient prior to the distribution, and a copy of the SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights included in the funding agreement is provided to the recipient.
(B) The Government shall not release, disclose, or permit access to SBIR/STTR Data that is Computer Software for commercial, manufacturing, or procurement purposes without the written permission of the awardee. The Government shall not release, disclose, or permit access to SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government without the written permission of the awardee unless:
(i) The non-Governmental entity has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the Government that complies with the terms for such agreements outlined in section 8 of this Policy Directive; and
(ii) The release or disclosure is—
(I) To a Government support service contractor for purposes of supporting Government internal use or activities, including evaluation, diagnosis and correction of deficiencies, and adaptation, combination, or integration with other Computer Software provided that SBIR/STTR Data incorporated into any derivative software are subject to the rights in paragraph (ff); or
(II) Necessary to support certain narrowly-tailored essential Government activities for which law or regulation permits access of a non-Government entity to a contractors' data developed exclusively at private expense, non-SBIR/STTR Data, such as for emergency repair and overhaul.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(b)
(1) An SBC has ownership of all SBIR/STTR Data it develops or generates in the performance of an SBIR/STTR award. The SBC retains all rights in SBIR/STTR Data that are not granted to the Government in accordance with this Policy Directive. These rights of the SBC do not expire.
(2) During the SBIR/STTR Protection Period, the Government receives SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights in SBIR/STTR Data that is Technical Data or any other type of Data other than Computer Software; and SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights in SBIR/STTR Data that is Computer Software.
(3) After the protection period, the Government receives Unlimited Rights in all SBIR/STTR Data that was protected during the protection period.
(4) The Government receives Unlimited Rights in all unmarked data.
(c)
(1) The authorized legend shall be placed on each page of the SBIR/STTR Data. If only portions of a page are subject to the asserted restrictions, the SBIR/STTR Awardee shall identify the restricted portions (
This is SBIR/STTR Data (or is Computer Software or a prototype that embodies or includes SBIR/STTR Data) to which the SBIR/STTR Awardee has SBIR/STTR Data Rights and to which the Government has received SBIR/STTR Technical Data Rights (or SBIR/STTR Computer Software Rights) during the SBIR/STTR Protection Period and Unlimited Rights after the Protection Period, as those terms are defined in the SBIR/STTR funding agreement. Any reproduction of SBIR/STTR Data or portions of such data marked with this legend must also reproduce the markings.
(End of Legend)
(2) If the SBIR/STTR Awardee has marked its data using the date last deliverable due, and the date of acceptance of the last deliverable differs from the date the last deliverable is due, the SBIR/STTR Awardee has the option of remarking the data with the date of acceptance of the last deliverable. Data submitted without correct or appropriate markings may be corrected within 6 months from the date the data is delivered.
(d)
(End of Clause)
(4)
(5)
“SBIR/STTR Awardees must report inventions to the awarding agency within 2 months of the inventor's report to the awardee.”
Note: Some agencies provide electronic reporting of inventions through the NIH iEdison Invention Reporting System (iEdison System). The iEdison System may be used to satisfy all invention reporting requirements mandated by the applicable regulations. Access to the system is through a secure interactive Internet site,
(e)
“Cost-sharing is permitted for proposals under this program solicitation; however, cost-sharing is not required. Cost-sharing will not be an evaluation factor in consideration of your Phase I proposal.”
(f)
(g)
(h)
SBIR:
(1) “For Phase I a minimum of two-thirds of the research and/or analytical effort must be performed by the proposing small business concern unless otherwise approved in writing by the funding agreement officer after consultation with the agency SBIR Program Manager/Coordinator.
(2) For Phase II a minimum of one-half of the research and/or analytical effort must be performed by the proposing small business concern unless otherwise approved in writing by the funding agreement officer after
STTR:
“For both Phase I and Phase II, not less than 40 percent of the R/R&D work must be performed by the SBC, and not less than 30 percent of the R/R&D work must be performed by a, partnering Research Institution, as defined in this solicitation.”
(i)
“Upon award of a funding agreement, the awardee will be required to make certain legal commitments through acceptance of numerous clauses in Phase I funding agreements. The outline that follows is illustrative of the types of clauses to which the contractor would be committed. This list is not a complete list of clauses to be included in Phase I funding agreements, and is not the specific wording of such clauses. Copies of complete terms and conditions are available upon request.”
(j)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(k)
(1) This program solicitation is intended for informational purposes and reflects current planning. If there is any inconsistency between the information contained herein and the terms of any resulting SBIR/STTR funding agreement, the terms of the funding agreement are controlling.
(2) Before award of an SBIR/STTR funding agreement, the Government may request the applicant to submit certain organizational, management, personnel, and financial information to assure responsibility of the applicant.
(3) The Government is not responsible for any monies expended by the applicant before award of any funding agreement.
(4) This program solicitation is not an offer by the Government and does not obligate the Government to make any specific number of awards. Also, awards under the SBIR/STTR program are contingent upon the availability of funds.
(5) The SBIR/STTR program is not a substitute for existing unsolicited proposal mechanisms. Unsolicited proposals must not be accepted under the SBIR/STTR program in either Phase I or Phase II.
(6) If an award is made pursuant to a proposal submitted under this SBIR/STTR program solicitation, a representative of the contractor or grantee or party to a cooperative agreement will be required to certify that the concern has not previously been, nor is currently being, paid for essentially equivalent work by any Federal agency.
(a) This section must clearly specify the closing date on which all proposals are due to be received.
(b) This section must specify the number of copies of the proposal that are to be submitted.
(c) This section must clearly set forth the complete mailing and/or delivery address(es) where proposals are to be submitted.
(d) This section may include other instructions such as the following:
(1)
(2)
§ 7.
§ 8.
§ 9.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |