Page Range | 1291-1480 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 1449 - Sunshine Act: OPIC Annual Public Hearing | |
81 FR 1448 - Sunshine Act Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board | |
81 FR 1454 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 1439 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Broadband Cellular and Satellite Communications Exploratory Development | |
81 FR 1398 - Large Residential Washers From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
81 FR 1474 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
81 FR 1396 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 119-Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Authorization of Production Activity; CNH Industrial America, LLC; (Agricultural Equipment and Related Subassemblies and Attachments); Benson, Minnesota | |
81 FR 1440 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
81 FR 1446 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Evaluation of the Disability Employment Initiative Round 5 and Future Rounds | |
81 FR 1336 - Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program: Filing Deadlines for Court Review of Administrative Final Decisions | |
81 FR 1395 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 230-Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina Authorization of Production Activity, Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corporation (Hydraulic Excavators), Kernersville, North Carolina | |
81 FR 1431 - Meeting Announcement for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee Required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 | |
81 FR 1388 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1470 - Waiver of Debris Containment Requirements for Launch | |
81 FR 1472 - Waiver of Acceptable Risk Restriction for Launch | |
81 FR 1405 - Request for Information Regarding Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Resubmission Guidelines | |
81 FR 1386 - Withdrawal of United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims | |
81 FR 1386 - United States Standards for Grades of Pecans | |
81 FR 1466 - Agreement on Government Procurement: Effective Date of Amendments for the Republic of Korea | |
81 FR 1445 - North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation Notice of Determination Regarding Review of Submission #2015-04 | |
81 FR 1365 - TSCA Inventory Equivalency Determinations for Certain Class 2 Substances; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response | |
81 FR 1415 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for November 2015 | |
81 FR 1396 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
81 FR 1468 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Neptune Aviation Services, Inc. | |
81 FR 1467 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Mr. Mikkel Grandjean-Thomsen | |
81 FR 1443 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Annual Reporting for Manufacturers of Listed Chemicals | |
81 FR 1443 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Monitoring Information Collections | |
81 FR 1444 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision to a Previously Approved Collection Community Policing Self-Assessment (CP-SAT) | |
81 FR 1478 - Notice of Establishment of Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2016 | |
81 FR 1394 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1466 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Department of the Air Force | |
81 FR 1468 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; U.S. Coast Guard Air Operations | |
81 FR 1467 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; PHI, Inc. | |
81 FR 1414 - Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) Meeting Dates and Agenda | |
81 FR 1474 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Monarch, Inc. | |
81 FR 1415 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits | |
81 FR 1469 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway | |
81 FR 1420 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types | |
81 FR 1469 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bombardier Inc. | |
81 FR 1436 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Investigating Factors That Influence Career Choice Among Neuroscience Trainees NINDS | |
81 FR 1435 - Extension of Public Comment Period for the Request for Information (RFI): Soliciting Input for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Strategic Planning Process | |
81 FR 1480 - Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1458 - Order Making Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Adjustments to Transaction Fee Rates | |
81 FR 1388 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels | |
81 FR 1411 - Gresham Municipal Utilities; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
81 FR 1413 - San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchanges; Notice of Compliance Filing | |
81 FR 1413 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 1412 - Mill and Main Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 1414 - Coaltrain Energy, L.P., Peter Jones, Shawn Sheehan, Robert Jones, Jeff Miller, Jack Wells, and Adam Hughes; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional | |
81 FR 1414 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
81 FR 1412 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 1424 - Submission for OMB Review; North Carolina Sales Tax Certification | |
81 FR 1479 - Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1421 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 1440 - Notice of Public Meetings, Southwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council Oil and Gas Sub-Group | |
81 FR 1403 - Marine Mammals; File No. 16239 | |
81 FR 1407 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2015-2016 Pension Liabilities Update | |
81 FR 1404 - Interagency Working Group on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act Great Lakes Webinars; Correction | |
81 FR 1408 - Public Meeting To Discuss Next Steps Toward Implementing a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities | |
81 FR 1409 - Excess Uranium Management: Secretarial Determination of No Adverse Impact on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries | |
81 FR 1364 - Definitions of Terms Relating to Marital Status; Hearing | |
81 FR 1376 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act | |
81 FR 1424 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 1450 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 1420 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 1407 - Defense Intelligence Agency National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 1430 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
81 FR 1430 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Prevention and Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1422 - Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
81 FR 1405 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 1465 - Texas Disaster #TX-00462 | |
81 FR 1464 - Oklahoma Disaster #OK-00098 | |
81 FR 1465 - Mississippi Disaster #MS-00083 | |
81 FR 1464 - Mississippi Disaster #MS-00082 | |
81 FR 1464 - Idaho Disaster #ID-00060 | |
81 FR 1436 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 1437 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1434 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 1432 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1436 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 1432 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1435 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1434 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1433 - Fogarty International Center; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 1438 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 1479 - Notice of Open Public Hearing | |
81 FR 1448 - Board Meeting: February 17, 2016-The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Will Meet To Discuss DOE Research on Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Spent Fuel | |
81 FR 1438 - Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers for 2016 | |
81 FR 1455 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
81 FR 1457 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity | |
81 FR 1450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Government Securities Division Fee Schedule | |
81 FR 1442 - Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same | |
81 FR 1426 - Next Generation Sequencing-Based Oncology Panels; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
81 FR 1428 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco To Protect Children and Adolescents | |
81 FR 1441 - Certain Rack Mountable Power Distribution Units; Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 1292 - Student Pilot Application Requirements | |
81 FR 1322 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Frankenia johnstonii (Johnston's frankenia) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants | |
81 FR 1368 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 17 Petitions | |
81 FR 1307 - Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition-Reporting Theft or Loss of Firearms in Transit (2007R-9P) | |
81 FR 1349 - Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries | |
81 FR 1320 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi; Memphis, TN-MS-AR Emissions Statements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
81 FR 1359 - Alternative to Fingerprinting Requirement for Foreign Natural Persons | |
81 FR 1291 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
81 FR 1318 - Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 | |
81 FR 1337 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions | |
81 FR 1345 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Risk Management Agency
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -77B, -85B, -90B, and -94B turbofan engines. This AD requires performing an eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective January 27, 2016.
We must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We received a report of an HPC stage 8-10 spool uncontained failure resulting in an airplane fire. Ongoing investigations have determined that a crack initiated in the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC 8-10 spool and propagated until spool rupture. The root cause of the crack initiation is not yet known. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GE90 S/B 72-1145, dated November 24, 2015. The SB describes procedures for one-time on-wing USI of the stage 8 web of the stage 8-10 spool. We also reviewed the following chapters of GE GE90 Engine Manual, GEK100700, Revision 66, dated September 1, 2015:
• Chapter 72-31-08, Special Procedure 003, piece-part level ECI,
• Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 006, rotor assembly and module level ECI and,
• Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 007, rotor assembly level USI.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing an ECI or USI of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection.
We consider this AD interim action. GE is determining the root cause for the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once a root cause is identified, we might consider additional rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the reported engine failure. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written 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
We estimate that this AD affects 1 engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $780,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $780,595.
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.
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 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 January 27, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -77B, -85B, -90B, and -94B turbofan engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, part number 1694M80G04, installed.
This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Perform an eddy current inspection or ultrasonic inspection of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool for cracks as follows:
(i) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with serial number (S/N) GWNHC086 or GWNHB875, inspect within 150 cycles-in-service (CIS), after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with S/N GWNHC154, GWNHA455, GWNHC153, or GWNHB516, inspect within 300 CIS, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Remove from service any HPC stage 8-10 spool that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD and replace the spool with a spool eligible for installation.
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:
For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action requires applicants to apply for a student pilot certificate through a Flight Standards District Office, designated pilot examiner, airman certification representative associated with a pilot school, or certified flight instructor. Aviation Medical Examiners will no longer issue a combination medical certificate and student pilot certificate. Student pilot certificates will be issued on the same medium as other pilot certificates and will have no expiration date. All student pilot certificates issued before the effective date of this final rule will expire according to their terms unless they are replaced by another pilot certificate. This final rule responds to section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and facilitates security vetting by the Transportation Security Administration of student pilot applicants prior to certificate issuance. This action withdraws the proposal for pilot certificates to include a photograph of the individual pilot. Section 321 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 supersedes section 4022 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which provided the
This rule is effective April 1, 2016.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the
Trey McClure, Airmen Certification and Training Branch, AFS-810, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003; telephone (202) 267-1100; email
As discussed in greater detail throughout this document, this rulemaking requires student pilots to apply for, obtain, and carry a plastic pilot certificate to exercise the privileges of the pilot certificate. Additionally, it modifies the process by which student pilots apply for a certificate. This rulemaking withdraws the proposals to require all pilots to carry a pilot certificate with a photo of the pilot and to implement a fee structure for pilot certificates. A comparison of current requirements, requirements proposed in the November 19, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (75 FR 70871), and new requirements adopted by this final rule are included in the following table.
The FAA estimates that the total costs for the final rule will be from $17 to $20.9 million over a ten-year period (2015-2024), which has a present value of $12.2 to $14.9 million using a 7 percent discount rate and has a present value of $14.7 to $18 million using a 3 percent discount rate.
Total costs to student pilots, including the time to complete and process paperwork, will be from $7.1 to $11 million during the next ten years, which has a present value of $5 to $7.7 million using a 7 percent discount rate and has a present value of $6.1 to $9.4 million using a 3 percent discount rate.
The FAA, in turn, will incur total unreimbursed costs of about $9.8 million to process the information, which has a present value of about $7.1 million using a 7 percent discount rate and has a present value of $8.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate.
Some authorized individuals
This rulemaking facilitates security vetting of all pilot certificate applicants before the FAA issues a pilot certificate. The FAA notes that following the direction of Congress provides a sufficient reasoned determination to justify the costs. These potential benefits are not quantifiable. The following table provides a summary of the cost-benefit analysis.
Note: The sum of individual items may not equal totals due to rounding.
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
Under Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Section 44703(b)(1)(C), the FAA may define the terms of an airman certificate that the FAA Administrator finds necessary to ensure safety in air commerce. Additionally, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Section 44703(g)(1) permits modifications to the airman certification system to make it more efficient in serving the needs of those enforcing laws related to combating acts of terrorism by ensuring verifiable identification of individuals applying for airman certificates. In Section 4012(a)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA),
This rulemaking is within the scope of that authority because it facilitates security vetting of all pilot certificate applicants before the FAA issues a pilot certificate.
On December 17, 2004, the President signed IRTPA. Section 4022 of that law requires the FAA to issue improved pilot certificates that (1) are resistant to tampering, altering, or counterfeiting; (2) include a photograph of the individual to whom the certificate is issued; and (3) are capable of accommodating a digital photograph, a biometric identifier, or any other unique identifier the FAA Administrator considers necessary. The law also allows the Administrator to use designees to carry out this mandate. IRTPA also amended Title 49 of the United States Code by requiring TSA, in coordination with the FAA, to screen individuals “against all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Government before being certificated by the FAA.”
On February 14, 2012, the President signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Sections 321 and 122 supersede the authority under which the FAA published the NPRM proposing to implement the requirements of IRTPA. Accordingly, the FAA withdraws the portions of the proposal that address photographs and fees for certificate issuance. The FAA has initiated other rulemakings to address the requirements stemming from sections 321 (RIN 2120-AK33) and 122 (RIN-2120-AK37). The FAA is issuing this final rule to address the requirements in section 4012 of IRTPA to ensure vetting of all student pilots prior to certificate issuance.
The Federal Aviation Administration Drug Enforcement Assistance Act of 1988 (“DEA Act”),
On January 5, 2007, the FAA published the Drug Enforcement Assistance NPRM.
On February 28, 2008, the FAA published the Drug Enforcement Assistance final rule (“the DEA final rule”).
On November 19, 2010, the FAA published an NPRM titled “Photo Requirements for Pilot Certificates.”
The FAA proposed to begin issuing a pilot certificate with photo to applicants for a new pilot certificate once the rule became effective. To minimize the burden of reissuance on existing certificate holders, the FAA proposed a 5-year implementation period. During the implementation period, the FAA proposed that pilots be required to exchange their non-photo pilot certificates for pilot certificates with photo when they interacted with the FAA. These “triggering events” included activities such as upgrading a certificate, obtaining or renewing a flight instructor certificate, or replacing a pilot certificate due to change of name, citizenship, date of birth, or change of gender. For pilots who would not otherwise have a need to interact with the FAA during the implementation period, the FAA proposed a phased approach, with different compliance dates for different categories of pilots.
The NPRM also described the proposed process for submitting an application for a pilot certificate with photo. To receive their initial pilot certificates with photo, the FAA proposed that all pilots appear in person to have their identities verified. The FAA proposed allowing FSDOs or other approved FAA designees such as DPEs or KTCs to accept the applications and verify pilots' identities. Pilots would still be able to replace lost or destroyed certificates with or without photo by mail or via the Airman Certification Branch's Web page on the FAA Web site.
The proposed rule applied to all pilots, including student pilots. The FAA proposed that student pilots obtain a plastic certificate with photo instead of a paper certificate. The plastic pilot certificate with photo would not have an expiration date. However, the FAA proposed that certificate holders be required to submit a new photo every 8 years. Because the student pilot certificate would be plastic and contain a photo, the FAA proposed that AMEs no longer issue student pilot certificates or combination medical certificates and student pilot certificates. Students would continue to receive their medical certificates from AMEs but would go to a FSDO, DPE, KTC, or other approved FAA designee to apply for a student pilot certificate with photo. Additionally, because the new student pilot certificates would be plastic, the FAA proposed that flight instructors endorse only students' logbooks.
The FAA received approximately 470 comments to the NPRM. Most were from individual pilots. In addition, the agency received comments from Transport Canada, the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and the United States Pilots Association (USPA). Most of the commenters opposed the concept of adding a photo to the pilot certificate, as well as the proposal to require student pilots to have a certificate with a photo. Commenters also suggested changes to the proposals, which are discussed more fully later in this document.
The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the proposal:
• Requirement of a photo on pilot certificates.
• Fees for obtaining new, replacement, or renewed a pilot certificate with photo.
• Inclusion of students in the requirement to have certificates with photo.
• Duration of the photo on the certificate.
• Application process for new, replacement, or renewed pilot certificates with photo.
• Implementation process using “trigger” events and phased deadlines.
• Regulatory evaluation.
• Lack of security benefits by adding a photograph.
This rule adopts the proposal to require student pilots to carry a plastic certificate and apply in person for a student pilot certificate at a FSDO, through a DPE, with an ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school, or with a CFI. This rule withdraws the remaining proposals.
Student pilots will receive plastic student pilot certificates instead of a paper student pilot certificate or combination medical certificate and student pilot certificate. The cost to replace a student pilot certificate will be $2, the same as other certificates. This current nominal fee defrays part of the Registry's cost of replacing the pilot certificate. The plastic certificates will not expire, which will give the student unlimited time to complete training without having to apply for another student pilot certificate.
AMEs no longer will issue a combination medical certificate and student pilot certificate or accept an application for a student pilot certificate. An applicant must appear in person to apply for a student pilot certificate at a FSDO, through a DPE, with an ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school, or with a CFI. The Civil Aviation Registry will send a plastic student pilot certificate to the applicant after successful completion of security vetting by TSA. Receipt of a student pilot certificate is required prior to exercising the privileges of a student pilot certificate (
Student pilots who have been issued a paper student pilot certificate or combination medical certificate and student pilot certificate may continue to use their paper certificate. These currently-issued student pilot certificates will expire according to the requirements of § 61.19(b).
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to include a photo of the individual pilot on all pilot certificates to comply with section 4022 of IRTPA.
A total of 382 comments specifically addressed the issue of adding a photo to pilot certificates. Of these commenters, only 47 commenters supported the idea. Most of the supportive commenters stated that the proposal would ensure the certificate holder is who he or she claims to be and make certificates more difficult to forge. A few believed the addition of a photo would make the pilot certificate appear more “professional.” The remainder expressed support for adding a photo without providing a reason. NAFI and NATA were among the supporters of adding a photo to the pilot certificate, but they expressed concern over some of the other proposals in the NPRM and suggested some changes. An additional four commenters, including EAA, supported the idea of a photo on the pilot certificate only if compliance was voluntary. Three commenters suggested also adding a photo to other certificates, such as mechanic and repairman certificates.
A total of 335 commenters, including USPA, opposed the proposal to add a photo to the pilot certificate. Most of these commenters stated the current requirement to carry a form of government-issued photo identification in addition to the pilot certificate was simple, adequate, and should be continued. Many claimed the proposal would do nothing to increase security or safety, because certificates could still be forged, and a determined terrorist would not be deterred. Others stated that a photo on a certificate would not increase security because pilots were seldom, if ever, asked to present a pilot certificate before flying. Additionally, 10 commenters, including SAFE, NAFI, and AOPA, stated that the proposal would not effectively increase security or meet the requirements of IRTPA because the certificate would lack a biometric other than a photo.
Thirty-one commenters proposed exemptions for certain categories of non-student pilots, such as flight instructors, sport pilots, and any already-certificated pilots. These commenters included SAFE, NAFI, HAI, and AOPA, who all called for exempting flight instructor certificates because those certificates must be renewed every 2 years. The commenters also stated that requiring instructors to pay the proposed certificate renewal fee more frequently than other pilots would impose an unfair burden on this pilot population. Additionally, because flight instructor certificates are not valid without an underlying pilot certificate, these organizations believed requiring a photo on the flight instructor certificates would be redundant. ALPA requested an exemption for part 121 and 135 pilots, stating that extensive background checks and TSA-issued credentials mean these pilots are less of a security threat than other pilots.
Eleven commenters, including SAFE, supported pilot certificates with photo only if the new certificate provided additional benefits, such as allowing access through TSA checkpoints or replacing airport-specific badges. Many of these commenters stated that pilots would be unwilling to pay a fee for the certificate with photo unless they saw a substantial personal benefit, such as allowing unescorted access to airports or faster checkpoint clearance. SAFE commented that if the FAA were to modify the pilot certificate in a manner that would be compliant with TSA security requirements, such as adding “smart card” or biometric features, the pilot certificate might be able to replace the airport-specific badges pilots currently must carry. Carrying one card instead of several would reduce the burden on pilots.
As discussed earlier, sections 321 and 122 of Public Law 112-95, which was enacted while this rulemaking was pending, supersedes section 4022 of IRTPA. Accordingly, the FAA withdraws the proposals to include a photo of the pilot on the pilot certificate and the proposed $22 pilot certificate fee. The FAA has initiated other rulemakings to address sections 321 and 122.
Currently, pilots must appear in person in order to upgrade a certificate or to add a rating. Additionally, a pilot who wants to change any vital information on the certificate must also appear in person. The FAA requires pilots to appear in person before an FAA ASI, AST, or an approved designee in these instances because they involve identity verification; an examination of skills or knowledge; verification of records; or a combination of these requirements. If a pilot certificate is lost or destroyed, the pilot may apply for a replacement online or by mail under current rules.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that pilots must appear in person for the purpose of identity verification in the following circumstances: when applying for a non-student pilot certificate with photo for the first time; when changing vital information on the certificate (such as name, date of birth, citizenship, or gender); and when upgrading a certificate or adding a rating. For these in-person applications, the FAA proposed that a pilot must appear at a FSDO or an FAA designee. Applicants would also need to provide a photo as part of the application process. For a replacement of a lost or destroyed pilot certificate, a pilot could submit an application in person, through the mail, or online.
Two commenters stated that the proposed non-student pilot certificate application process was adequate and would not impose a burden on pilots. Twenty-seven commenters stated that the proposed application process was too burdensome for pilots. They claimed that the hours of operation for FSDOs are inconvenient for most people, and that scheduling an appointment is difficult. They also asserted that many pilots live far away from FSDOs or FAA designees. Commenters contended the travel distance, fuel costs, time away from work, and possible hotel room costs incurred while traveling to a FSDO or approved FAA designee would put a financial strain on pilots. Additionally, commenters claimed that allowing DPEs to charge an unspecified fee for accepting applications would further increase the financial cost to pilots. Other commenters noted the difficulty of finding an FAA designee in foreign countries.
Sixty-eight commenters suggested improvements to the proposed application process. Of these
The second most common suggestion was for the FAA to make the pilot certificate application process web-based. Twenty commenters stated that it would be more convenient and less costly for pilots to submit applications and photos through a web-based system, such as the FAA's Integrated Airman Certification and/or Rating Application (IACRA). They said that submitting applications online would save time for pilots, especially those pilots living in rural areas. Some commenters stated that even if the FAA still required in-person application submissions in some instances, electronic submissions would at least be easier for the FSDO or FAA designee to handle than paper submissions. Electronic submissions would also reach the FAA faster than paper submissions, reducing delays in processing applications and issuing certificates. SAFE, NAFI, and HAI supported this idea.
Sixteen commenters suggested the FAA authorize the U.S. Postal Service to accept pilot certificate applications and photos and to verify the identity of the applicant, similar to the way many post offices accept passport applications. The commenters noted that most pilots live closer to a post office than to a FSDO or pilot school. The commenters also noted the hours of operation for post offices are often more convenient.
Another suggestion from seven commenters was to work in conjunction with the U.S. State Department because of its experience issuing passports with photos. These commenters stated that pilots who already have U.S. passports could save time and money if the FAA had a method of accessing the passport photo database and adding those photos to pilot certificates. Since the FAA's proposal for photo requirements is identical to the requirements for passport photos, the commenters believed the photos in the passport database should be adequate for use on pilot certificates.
Several commenters suggested increasing the types of persons the FAA could use as designees to accept applications and verify identities. Among the persons suggested as additional FAA designees were ACRs, flight instructors, and carrier personnel such as check airmen and directors of training and operations. The commenters believed that authorizing more persons to accept applications and verify identities would make the application process more convenient for pilots.
Finally, a few commenters, including EAA, suggested that the FAA accept pilot certificate applications and photos at major aviation events such as AirVenture Oshkosh and Sun `n Fun. They stated that since the FAA usually sends representatives to such events, it would be logical to allow those representatives to accept applications and photos and verify identities. It would also be convenient for pilots who live far from a FSDO or other designated portal, but who regularly attend these events.
As stated earlier, the FAA withdraws the proposal to issue pilot certificates with a photo. The FAA will consider the additional suggestions as it develops an NPRM for Pilot Certificate with Photograph and Biometric Information (RIN 2120-AK33).
Under current regulations, student pilots hold paper certificates. Paper student pilot certificates are valid for either 24 or 60 calendar months, depending on the age of the student pilot at the time of issuance.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to treat student pilots like other pilots and require them to obtain a plastic student pilot certificate with a photo. The FAA proposed that the new student pilot certificate would not have an expiration date. However, the student pilot would have to renew the photo every 8 years in order to continue exercising the privileges of the student pilot certificate. The FAA proposed that only the FAA Civil Aviation Registry would issue pilot certificates with a photo. DPEs and AMEs would no longer issue student pilot certificates. DPEs, however, would be able to accept applications for student pilot certificates with photo. Additionally, the FAA proposed that because new student pilot certificates would be plastic, flight instructors would endorse only student pilot logbooks instead of student pilot certificates and logbooks.
This final rule will require persons to apply for a student pilot certificate at a FSDO, through a DPE, with an ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school, or with a CFI. The applicant must receive a plastic student pilot certificate from the Civil Aviation Registry prior to exercising the privileges of a student pilot certificate (
Numerous commenters questioned the proposed application process for a student pilot certificate, as discussed earlier with respect to all pilot certificates. An individual commenter suggested that CFIs could verify a student pilot applicant's photograph identification and enter the data into IACRA for transmittal to the Civil Aviation Registry. Permitting CFIs to accept applications for student pilot certificates would reduce the burden on applicants.
In light of the comments, and because of the narrower scope of this final rule, the FAA has reconsidered who may accept an application.
As proposed, AMEs will not issue a combination medical certificate and student pilot certificate at the time of a medical examination nor accept an application for a student pilot certificate. Accordingly, § 183.21 is amended to remove the privilege for AMEs to issue student pilot certificates.
Though not proposed, the FAA has concluded that permitting CFIs to accept a student pilot application significantly reduces the travel burden associated with a student pilot certificate application. A person applying for a student pilot certificate would engage and visit a CFI to conduct flight training, and an applicant could complete the application during any flight training session. Additionally, TSA regulations currently require CFIs to verify a student pilot's identity under 49 CFR 1552.3(h)(1). That section
Additionally, an ASI or AST at a FSDO, a DPE, or an ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school will continue to be able to accept an application and verify the applicant's identity, but they will not be able to issue a student pilot certificate. These individuals, along with CFIs, are referred to collectively as authorized individuals for the purposes of application acceptance in this discussion.
The FAA is withdrawing the proposal to permit KTCs to accept an application due to potential added costs to equip and train KTC personnel and also because KTC personnel currently are not authorized to accept an application for an airman certificate. Withdrawing the portion of the NPRM that requires all pilots to obtain a pilot certificate with a photo significantly reduces the number of individuals affected by this final rule. The reduced number of affected applicants does not justify the resources necessary to designate and train KTCs on accepting applications. Furthermore, by permitting CFIs to accept an application for a student pilot certificate, applicants will have no additional travel burden associated with their student pilot certificate application because they already will interact with a CFI for flight training.
The FAA expects that all authorized individuals will utilize IACRA for the purpose of accepting a student pilot application. IACRA is a Web-based certification/rating application that guides the user through the FAA's application process. The FAA notes that IACRA currently may be used to submit a student pilot application and therefore will not require substantial modifications to the Web-based application system. However, IACRA will be modified so a student pilot certificate will not be issued at the time of application.
A person who meets the eligibility requirements of a student pilot certificate may register as an applicant through IACRA which stores FAA form 8710-1 electronically until an authorized individual accesses the form. FAA form 8710-1 may be accessed by an authorized individual by searching for the person's unique FAA tracking number (FTN) assigned by an FAA internal system after the person has completed the required items on the student pilot application form. The authorized individual will verify that the applicant meets the regulatory eligibility requirements, and that the application has been completed properly. Additionally, the authorized individual will verify the applicant's identity in accordance with TSA security vetting requirements as described in Appendix 2 of Advisory Circular 61-65 and input the identification data into IACRA when prompted. Once the authorized individual has completed the application through IACRA, it will be transmitted electronically to the Civil Aviation Registry for processing.
All authorized individuals will have the ability to accept a student pilot application in paper format to ensure all applicants have uninterrupted ability to apply for an FAA student pilot certificate. The same information captured on the paper FAA form 8710-1 is captured within IACRA. However, once the authorized individual verifies that the application is complete in accordance with the form's instructions and FAA Order 8900.1, the Flight Standards Information Management System, the individual will send the student pilot application to the Civil Aviation Registry via first-class mail. The FAA notes that the submittal of a paper FAA form 8710-1 may delay the issuance of a student pilot certificate because of mailing time. While an authorized individual has the ability to accept a paper FAA form 8710-1, the FAA anticipates that a majority of these applications will be submitted via IACRA.
Once a student pilot application is received, the Civil Aviation Registry will verify compliance and the accuracy of the application and provide the applicant's information to TSA for security vetting prior to certificate issuance. Under current FAA procedures, the FAA transmits a student pilot's biographic information for security vetting to TSA after certificate issuance. However, under this final rule, the Civil Aviation Registry will issue the student pilot certificate only after receiving a successful response from TSA. The Civil Aviation Registry will mail the student pilot certificate via U.S. Postal Service to the address listed on the application. All pilots will continue to be vetted perpetually thereafter.
Of the 65 commenters that addressed the proposal to require student pilots to obtain a plastic student pilot certificate with a photo, only two supported the proposal. They believed that students should be treated like any other pilot. One additional commenter stated that issuing student pilot certificates that do not expire would be an improvement over the current student pilot certificates that are only valid for 24 or 60 months, but the commenter did not address any other aspects of the student pilot certificate proposal.
Forty-nine commenters believed student pilots should be exempt from the requirement to have a plastic certificate with a photo. Most of these commenters, including HAI, AOPA, NATA, EAA, NAFI, and SAFE, expressed the belief that the projected 6 to 8 week delay, as stated in the NPRM, in waiting for a plastic certificate with a photo would be a serious burden for student pilots, who could not fly solo without the certificate. Commenters believed that the wait time might discourage students from completing their training or from even starting training. The result, these commenters claimed, would be a negative impact on flight schools and flight instructors. Additionally, some commenters stated that since students are under the guidance and supervision of a flight instructor, they pose less of a security risk and should be exempt from the proposed requirements.
The FAA will take steps to expedite student pilot applications in order for students to receive their student pilot certificates so they may exercise the privileges of the certificate as soon as feasible. The FAA estimates that the turnaround time for student pilot certificates can be reduced to an average of 3 weeks or less, provided that initial security vetting by TSA indicates that the applicant is eligible for the certificate. If an applicant is deemed ineligible by TSA on security grounds, he or she will be able to seek redress through TSA's administrative procedures.
Thirteen commenters suggested that if students must obtain a plastic certificate with a photo, they should immediately receive a temporary paper certificate (with or without a photo) that would
IRTPA required that security vetting of all individuals, including pilots, must be successfully completed by TSA before the FAA issues a certificate. Therefore, applicants for student pilot certificates must be vetted to receive their certificates and operate an aircraft as pilot in command.
Seventeen commenters specifically addressed the proposal to remove AMEs from the student pilot certification process, including NATA, EAA, and SAFE. All 17 opposed the proposal. EAA and other commenters indicated that not allowing AMEs to issue student pilot certificates would create additional burdens for students, who would have to make a trip to another location for their certificate. NATA asked that the FAA continue the issuance and use policies and procedures already in place for paper student pilot certificates. Some, including SAFE, suggested that AMEs should at least be able to accept student pilot applications and photos. Others disagreed with the FAA's assertion that requiring AMEs to verify a student's identity would be a burden on the AME. They noted that AMEs already must verify an applicant's identity in order to assure the students they are examining are who they claim to be.
To address the IRTPA mandates, the FAA's Civil Aviation Registry will issue plastic, tamper-resistant student pilot certificates following successful security vetting of the applicant. AMEs are required, under § 67.4, to verify the identity of an applicant for a medical certificate; however, they are not required to have the capability to produce plastic, tamper-resistant certificates, nor do they have the authority to make security vetting determinations about applicants. The FAA considered allowing student pilot applicants to continue to make application with an AME to maintain convenience for student pilot applicants. Ultimately the Agency determined that AMEs, who are physicians, should focus on the medical qualifications of an applicant rather than on airman certification activities that are within the expertise of other FAA designees.
In addition, the advent of IACRA, an online application system that replaces paper-based systems, has significantly increased FAA data safeguarding, maintenance, and safety oversight responsibilities. The current combination student pilot and medical certificate, issued by AMEs, dates from the paper-based era and does not take advantage of technological advances that have improved the airman certification process. Integrating the data collected by an AME into the centralized Civil Aviation Registry system presents significant technological and administrative challenges. By necessity for privacy reasons, the IACRA system and the medical certification systems must be kept separate. The FAA's recordkeeping and personal identity information protection would be compromised if the FAA's medical application and airman application databases were fully integrated. Currently, IACRA does not have a role developed to allow AMEs to utilize the system to process a student pilot application, and creation of such a role would require training and oversight by a different FAA line of business than that which typically supports AMEs. This duplication of oversight and use of multiple systems by AMEs would not only increase the likelihood of errors but also would reverse the FAA's efforts to decrease duplication and redundancy. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that data is better safeguarded by keeping medical and operational certification processes and oversight separate and distinct. Doing so necessitates separate medical and operational electronic portals to remove any possibility of data spillage. Keeping the processes and oversight separate also allows medical certification and airman certification personnel and designees to focus on the duties within their respective areas of expertise, thus improving regulatory compliance and the overall user experience.
In addition, given the statutory requirement to complete security vetting before issuing a certificate, the AME process of issuing student pilot certificates is no longer viable. In this regard, the FAA realized that it would not be efficient to continue to issue two separate types of student pilot certificates. The most efficient option is to dedicate centralized Civil Aviation Registry resources to the certification process. Therefore, the Civil Aviation Registry will issue a student pilot certificate after successful completion of TSA security vetting based on a student pilot's application which is made either at a FSDO, through a DPE, with an ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school, or with a CFI.
This final rule permits CFIs (as well as other operational designees) to accept student pilot certificate applications to minimize burdens on those applicants. Streamlining the application process by expanding the use of CFIs and other operational designees, even though the Agency is removing AMEs, will maintain applicant portal options and allow for enhanced FAA oversight capability of the pilot certification process. In the overwhelming majority of circumstances, a person seeking to pursue pilot certification will encounter a CFI (or an ACR at a part 141 pilot school) significantly before that person encounters an AME. Accordingly, the FAA has determined this final rule reduces the burden on a student pilot applicant while also streamlining FAA processes.
Because student pilot certificates now will be issued without an expiration date, the process for obtaining a replacement certificate if the certificate is lost or destroyed will be the process under § 61.29 as is currently in place for other pilot certificates. Similarly, the current replacement fee of $2 under § 187.5 will apply.
Finally, as proposed, the FAA is amending various requirements concerning endorsements for student pilots. Because the FAA will issue plastic student pilot certificates, endorsements will be made only in the student pilot's logbook upon the effective date of this final rule regardless of whether a paper or plastic pilot certificate had been issued to the student at the time of issuance. In addition to the amendments in the NPRM, the FAA is amending §§ 61.415 and 61.423 to remove the requirement to endorse the student pilot certificate.
The FAA proposed to add an expiration date to the photo on the pilot certificate. The pilot would need to renew the photo every 8 years in order to continue to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Requiring pilots to update their photos would ensure that the photo on the certificate continued to resemble the pilot and to serve as an adequate proof of identity. The FAA's proposed 8-year photo duration matches the requirements for drivers licenses set forth in the Real ID Act of 2005.
Of the 49 commenters who specifically mentioned the proposed photo duration period, 9 believed that 8 years was an acceptable timeframe. Among these supporters were NAFI and EAA. Five commenters objected to any photo expiration date, stating that the cost of having to renew the certificates was unacceptable. One commenter believed the photo should be updated more frequently than every 8 years, since an individual's appearance can change dramatically in a few years.
Thirty-four commenters believed the photo should have a 10-year duration, similar to U.S. passports. They stated that since the 10-year period was acceptable for an official government and internationally-recognized identification such as a passport, the same time period should be adequate for a pilot certificate. They also noted that increasing the time between required photo renewals would save pilots money over the course of a lifetime. Finally, some commenters favored a 10-year duration simply because 10 was a round number and easier to remember than 8 years.
As stated earlier, the FAA withdraws the proposal to issue pilot certificates with a photo and will consider the issue in a rulemaking to address the requirements of section 321 of Public Law 112-95. Accordingly, pilot certificates (including student pilot certificates) will continue to be issued without an expiration date.
The FAA proposed a $22 fee for all new, replacement, upgraded, or renewed pilot (including student pilot) certificates with photo. The fee was intended to recover some of the costs of producing the certificates. While production costs per certificate exceed this amount, $22 is the maximum amount the FAA was permitted to charge under 49 U.S.C. 45302(b)-(c), which provided the statutory authority for the NPRM.
Of the 76 commenters that specifically mentioned the proposed $22 fee for a new, replacement, or renewed certificate with photo, 5 stated that the proposed amount was acceptable.
Of the remaining 71 comments, 38 stated that the proposed fee was too high but did not suggest what they thought would be an acceptable amount. Five commenters stated that the certificate should cost “no more than a driver's license,” but again did not provide an amount. Twenty-two commenters stated that since the pilot certificate with a photo was a Congressional mandate, there should be no fee. They contended expenses should be funded from the FAA's budget, from aviation fuel taxes, or from other fees pilots already pay.
Most commenters opposed to the fee claimed that it would be a financial burden on pilots in an already stressful economic climate. Many claimed the fee would decrease the number of people who would become pilots, and might force many current pilots to quit. Others said the fee should be rejected because it was just a way for the FAA to make money. One commenter believed the FAA is prohibited from enacting a user fee by a restriction placed in the FAA appropriations bill
The FAA withdraws the proposal to charge a fee for certificate issuance. The FAA notes, however, that section 122 of Public Law 112-95 requires the FAA to charge a fee to recover the costs of certain airman certification and aircraft registration services. The FAA has initiated a rulemaking (RIN 2120-AK37) to implement that requirement and will publish an NPRM in the future.
The FAA proposed a “trigger-based” and phased implementation approach for issuing pilot certificates with photo. The “trigger-based” approach would have required any pilot interacting with the FAA during the implementation period to apply for a pilot certificate with photo. Such interactions would have included obtaining or renewing flight instructor certificates, applying for a new pilot certificate or rating, applying for a student pilot certificate, or changing vital information (such as name, citizenship, date of birth or gender). The phased approach would have applied to pilots who do not have a triggering event during the implementation period. The phased approach would have consisted of different compliance dates for different categories of pilots. All pilots, whether affected by the “trigger-based” or phased approach, would have been required to have a pilot certificate with a photo no later than 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. These approaches were designed to balance the FAA's ability to receive and timely process applications for the certificates while maintaining the existing range of Agency services.
Of the 17 commenters that specifically addressed the proposed “trigger” and phased implementation process, 8 stated the proposal was acceptable as written. They agreed that staggering the implementation dates for different certificate holders would reduce the burden on the FAA and may improve application processing times. They also contended that requiring an upgrade to a photo certificate at a “triggering” event, such as adding a rating, would prevent pilots from waiting until the last minute to apply for their certificates with photo.
Three commenters suggested using a “trigger-only” approach for pilot applications. They stated that it would reduce the burden on pilots to allow them to continue flying with their current non-photo certificates until they met one of the “triggering” events. Otherwise, the pilot may have to make an initial trip to a FSDO to upgrade to the photo certificate, and then have to make an additional trip back to the FSDO not long afterwards in order to add a rating, resulting in an increased burden.
Three commenters suggested the FAA reduce the time pilots have to comply. They stated that because pilot certificates with a photo would increase safety and security, it would be better to have all pilots obtain the certificates as soon as possible. Three additional commenters, including NAFI, proposed having a single compliance date for all pilots. Two of these commenters, including NAFI, stated that a single compliance date would cause less confusion for pilots and would reduce the chances of a pilot accidentally failing to comply. The third commenter favored a single compliance date because staggered dates might give the impression of unequal treatment of one or more pilot communities.
As stated earlier, the FAA withdraws the requirement to obtain a pilot certificate with a photo.
Four commenters, including AOPA, specifically mentioned the estimated total costs for airmen to comply with the proposal, as outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation. Each of the commenters disputed the accuracy of the cost figures and generally were opposed to expending scarce resources on the proposal given federal deficits and ongoing cost-cutting measures. One commenter stated that the high cost associated with the proposal was due to the FAA not considering more cost-effective and less onerous measures for accomplishing the same goal. All four commenters believed that the FAA
AOPA commented that the FAA's 20-year cost estimates may be grossly underestimated, and stated that the actual total present value costs to airmen would likely be more than the estimated $235.8 million outlined in the proposal. AOPA also believed that total overall implementation costs would exceed the estimated $380.1 million, but did not provide additional input as to how it derived these conclusions. AOPA was further concerned that the true costs to airmen were uncertain considering the proposal discussed the possibility that fee increases may be imposed via the Federal Aviation Reauthorization bill (H.R. 915), then pending before Congress. AOPA believed the proposal equated to a significant economic impact to airmen and the associated costs far outweighed any potential benefits.
As stated earlier, the FAA withdraws most proposals in the NPRM. The FAA has revised the regulatory evaluation consistent with the adopted changes to student pilot certification. Further, and as stated earlier, the fees authorized in section 122 of Public Law 112-95 are being addressed in a separate rulemaking.
Twelve commenters suggested that if the FAA planned to add photos to pilot certificates, other changes should be made to the certificates at the same time. Most suggestions were offered to improve legibility, such as increasing the font size; reducing the visual clutter by removing some less critical information, such as the pilot's address; and removing the image of the Wright Brothers. Other commenters suggested making the different levels of certificates (
Additionally, Transport Canada suggested the FAA replace the traditional pilot certificate with a certificate similar to the Canadian Aviation Document Booklet (ADB), to allow cross-sharing of data between Canada and the United States. The ADB resembles a passport and contains all of a pilot's licenses, permits, and medical certificates in one document. The licenses, permits, and medical certificates are issued through the mail as stick-on labels with security features. Security features include secure ink, bar codes, and complicated patterns designed to make forgery more difficult. As pilots add new ratings or licenses or update certificates, they add these labels to the ADB. The ADB also has a photo of the pilot. While no additional commenters specifically mentioned the ADB as a potential model, three commenters did suggest the FAA combine all certificates, including the medical certificate, into a single document to reduce the costs to pilots and to reduce the number of certificates a pilot must carry.
The FAA has determined that these suggestions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Any changes to the pilot certificate would need to be addressed in a separate rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that since publication of the NPRM, the FAA has increased the size of the font for the pilot's name, certificate level or type, and certificate number.
Two commenters believed the proposed language in § 61.3(a)(1)(v) was misleading. The proposed language stated that, “A person may not serve as a required crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person: when operating an aircraft in a foreign country, has a pilot license issued by that country.” The commenters noted that the language could be interpreted as requiring the pilot to have a license issued by the foreign country. That was not the FAA's intent. In a separate rulemaking (Certified Flight Instructor Flight Reviews; Recent Pilot in Command Experience; Airmen Online Services (RIN 2120-AK23) (78 FR 56822, September 16, 2013; confirmed at 78 FR 66261, November 5, 2013)), the FAA revised the language of § 61.3(a)(1)(v) to state that “(v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.”
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. The FAA suggests readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
This final rule responds to section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) by facilitating security vetting of all student pilot certificate applicants before the FAA issues a student pilot certificate. The FAA notes that following the direction of Congress provides a sufficient reasoned determination to justify the costs. These potential benefits are not quantifiable. The estimated cost of this final rule over 10 years is shown in the following table:
Student pilots who are applying for a student pilot certificate are potentially affected by this rule. In the year 2014, there were 120,546 active student pilots.
• All costs are presented in 2014 dollars.
• Discount rates—a 7% base case with a 3% sensitivity analysis rate
• Period of analysis—2015 through 2024
• A range of $13 to $25.22 is used as the hourly rate of an airman's time as advised by Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance.
• $23.59 is the hourly rate for a CFI and ACR associated with a part 141 school.
• Numbers of student pilot certificates from the FAA U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics, 2014
This action withdraws the proposal for pilot certificates to include a photo of the individual pilot. Additionally, this action withdraws the proposal to implement fees for pilot certificates.
Applicants must apply for a student pilot certificate through a FSDO, DPE, ACR associated with a part 141 pilot school, or CFI.
Newly issued student pilot certificates will not have an expiration date.
Comments on the NPRM recommended that FAA not remove the AME from the student pilot certificate application process because doing so will increase the financial burden on the student pilot by having him or her make an additional trip. The FAA has modified who may accept a student pilot application by withdrawing the KTCs and including CFIs as authorized individuals. This will reduce the burden on student pilot applicants since they already travel to CFIs for flight instruction.
These changes resulted in lower cost estimates than those published in the NPRM.
This final rule responds to section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) by facilitating security vetting of all student pilot certificate applicants before the FAA issues a student pilot certificate. As Congress understood the unquantifiable benefits of section 4012 exceed the costs as discussed next.
The compliance costs have three distinct components and are estimated over a ten-year period. The first component is the student pilot applicants' direct and indirect costs valued from $7.1 to $11 million. The second component is the costs incurred by the FAA's Civil Aviation Registry to process and issue a student pilot certificate for $9.8 million. TSA will not incur any additional costs as they already vet student pilots. Under this rule, TSA will conduct the vetting prior to the issuance of an FAA student pilot certificate. The third component is for the mailing expenses incurred by the authorized individual to mail the applications to FAA's Civil Aviation Registry for about $70,000. Total costs of this final rule are estimated to be from $17 to $20.9 million over a ten-year period.
The alternative represents a situation in which the FAA would only allow ACRs associated with part 141 pilot schools, DPEs, and FSDOs to act as authorized individuals for receiving student pilot certificate applications. The outcome would be that student pilot applicants who do not go to a part 141 pilot school for flight instruction would have to make an additional trip to a DPE or a FSDO to apply for a student pilot certificate. This would increase the travel costs to the student pilot applicants. The FAA estimated the cost of this alternative to be from $19 to $30.6 million ($13.5-$21.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate and $16.3-$26.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate.), which is more expensive than the final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. Section 604 of the RFA requires agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of final rules on small entities. Section 604(a) of the Act specifies the content of the FRFA.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. The FAA believes that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, because student pilots are not small entities. There were no comments regarding the economic impact on student pilots received in response to the NPRM. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This final rule will revise an existing information collection. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information collection amendments to OMB for its review. The Office of Management and Budget approved the amended information collection requirements under existing OMB Control Number 2120-0021.
The FAA estimates 38,700 applications for new and replacement student pilot certificates will take 0.5 hours each to complete. The student airman certification program imposes a 19,350 hours reporting burden. Equation 1 below provides the basis for 19,350 hours.
(1) 38,700 new applications for original student pilot certificates × 0.5 hours = 19,350 hours
The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burdens resulting from the collection of information is $251,550. This cost is determined by estimating the time required for the applicants to complete and submit FAA Form 8710-1 applications. Even though the FAA is using the IACRA system, no significant change in time required to complete and submit this form will occur. Equation 2 below provides the basis for $251,550 in costs.
(2) 38,700 8710-1 Applications × 0.5 hours × $13 per hour
The following table provides the total cost to respondents over ten years, and includes present and annualized values using a seven and three percent discount rate.
The FAA conducted a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of this rule as required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004). The assessment considers any impacts of the final rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related matters. The final rule would impact the handling of personally identifiable information (PII). The FAA has evaluated the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing PII and has evaluated protections and alternative information handling processes in developing the final rule in order to mitigate potential privacy risks. The risks to the student pilot population are the same as the risks for other individuals who are required to hold FAA-issued certificates. The PIA for the following system currently incorporates the student pilot population: AVS Registry, also known as the Registry Modernization System (RMS). This PIA is available for review in the docket for this rulemaking, as well as via
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
See the “Regulatory Evaluation” discussion in the “Regulatory Notices and Analyses” section elsewhere in this preamble.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Comments received may be viewed by going to
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Aircraft, Airmen, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Endorse a logbook for solo operating privileges.
(a)
(2) Except for a certificate issued with an expiration date, a pilot certificate is valid unless it is surrendered, suspended, or revoked.
(b)
(1) For student pilots who have not reached their 40th birthday, 60 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(2) For student pilots who have reached their 40th birthday, 24 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(3) For student pilots seeking a glider rating, balloon rating, or a sport pilot certificate, 60 calendar months after the month of the date issued, regardless of the person's age.
(c)
(2) The holder of a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license may exercise the privileges of that certificate only while that person's foreign pilot license is effective.
An applicant for a student pilot certificate:
(a) Must make that application in a form acceptable to the Administrator; and
(b) Must submit the application to a Flight Standards District Office, a designated pilot examiner, an airman certification representative associated with a pilot school, a flight instructor, or other person authorized by the Administrator.
(n)
(p) * * *
(3) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and
(4) Endorsed the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown, and that endorsement remains current for solo flight privileges, provided an authorized instructor updates the student's logbook every 90 days thereafter.
(c) * * *
(1) A student pilot must have a solo cross-country endorsement from the authorized instructor who conducted the training that is placed in that person's logbook for the specific category of aircraft to be flown.
(2) A student pilot must have a solo cross-country endorsement from an authorized instructor that is placed in that person's logbook for the specific make and model of aircraft to be flown.
(3) For each cross-country flight, the authorized instructor who reviews the cross-country planning must make an endorsement in the person's logbook after reviewing that person's cross-country planning, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The endorsement must—
(i) Specify the make and model of aircraft to be flown;
(ii) State that the student's preflight planning and preparation is correct and that the student is prepared to make the flight safely under the known conditions; and
(iii) State that any limitations required by the student's authorized instructor are met.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Endorse a pilot's logbook for solo operating privileges in an airship;
* * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Endorse a pilot's logbook for solo operating privileges in a balloon; and
(b) * * *
(1) The name of each person whose logbook that instructor has endorsed for solo flight privileges, and the date of the endorsement; and
(a) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to train and issue endorsements that are required for:
(1) A student pilot certificate;
(2) A pilot certificate;
(3) A flight instructor certificate;
(4) A ground instructor certificate;
(5) An aircraft rating;
(6) An instrument rating;
(7) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience requirement of this part;
(8) A practical test; and
(9) A knowledge test.
(b) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, to:
(1) Accept an application for a student pilot certificate;
(2) Verify the identity of the applicant; and
(3) Verify the applicant meets the eligibility requirements in § 61.83.
(d) * * *
(1) Student pilot's logbook for solo flight privileges, unless that flight instructor has—
* * *
(2) Student pilot's logbook for a solo cross-country flight, unless that flight instructor has determined the student's flight preparation, planning, equipment, and proposed procedures are adequate for the proposed flight under the existing conditions and within any limitations listed in the logbook that the instructor considers necessary for the safety of the flight;
(a) If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, you are authorized, within the limits of your certificate and rating, to provide training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to—
(1) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate;
(2) A sport pilot certificate;
(3) A flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
(4) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating;
(5) Sport pilot privileges;
(6) A flight review or operating privilege for a sport pilot;
(7) A practical test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
(8) A knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating; and
(9) A proficiency check for an additional category or class privilege for a sport pilot certificate or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
(b) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating is authorized, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, to:
(1) Accept an application for a student pilot certificate;
(2) Verify the identity of the applicant; and
(3) Verify the applicant meets the eligibility requirements in § 61.83.
(d) * * *
(1) Student pilot's logbook for solo flight privileges, unless you have—
* * *
(2) Student pilot's logbook for a solo cross-country flight, unless you have determined the student's flight preparation, planning, equipment, and proposed procedures are adequate for the proposed flight under the existing conditions and within any limitations listed in the logbook that you consider necessary for the safety of the flight.
(3) Student pilot's logbook for solo flight in Class B, C, and D airspace areas, at an airport within Class B, C, or D airspace and to from, through or on an airport having an operational control tower, unless you have—
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Each person whose logbook you have endorsed for solo flight privileges.
31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44702, 45303.
(c) Issue or deny medical certificates in accordance with part 67 of this chapter, subject to reconsideration by the Federal Air Surgeon or his or her authorized representatives within the FAA; and
(d) [Reserved.]
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concerning the statutory reporting requirement for firearms that have been stolen or lost. The final rule specifies that when a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) discovers a firearm it shipped was stolen or lost in transit, the transferor/sender FFL must report the theft or loss to ATF and to the appropriate local authorities within 48 hours of discovery. The rule also reduces an FFL's reporting burden when a theft or loss involves a firearm registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and ensures consistent reporting to ATF's NFA Branch. In addition, the rule specifies that transferor/sender FFLs must reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry in their required records not later than 7 days following discovery of the theft or loss; moreover, if an FFL reported the theft or loss of a firearm and later discovers its whereabouts, the FFL must advise ATF that the firearm has been located and must re-enter the firearm into its required records as an acquisition or disposition entry as appropriate.
This rule is effective February 11, 2016.
Denise Brown, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, requires each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector of firearms to report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory or collection to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and to the appropriate local authorities within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered.
The regulation that implements section 923(g)(6) is 27 CFR 478.39a. This regulation provides that each Federal firearms licensee (FFL) must report the theft or loss of a firearm from the FFL's inventory (including any firearm which has been transferred from the FFL's inventory to a personal collection and held as a personal firearm for at least 1 year), or from the collection of a licensed collector, within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. FFLs must report such thefts or losses by telephoning 1-888-930-9275 (nationwide ATF toll-free number) and by preparing a Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report, ATF Form 3310.11 (Form 3310.11), in accordance with the instructions on the form. The FFL must also report the theft or loss of a firearm to the appropriate local authorities.
When there has been a theft or loss of a firearm registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5801
Currently, an FFL reporting the theft or loss of a registered NFA firearm prepares and submits Form 3310.11 to ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC), the receiving office designated on the form, to meet the 27 CFR 478.39a requirements. In addition, the FFL must submit a separate notification to the Director of ATF to meet the requirements of 27 CFR 479.141. Because no form is directly associated with the separate notification to the Director, FFLs submit a letter to the NFA Branch of ATF, as directed in the “Important Notice” section of Form 3310.11. As a backup to this requirement, when NTC receives a completed Form 3310.11 involving the theft or loss of an NFA firearm, it currently forwards a copy of the completed form to the NFA Branch, as the completed form often contains more information than the letters FFLs submit to the NFA Branch. Form 3310.11 does not, however, ask for the name and address of the person in whose name the firearm is registered, which is required to be reported under 27 CFR 479.141. Therefore, the NFA Branch may not currently be receiving consistent and complete information regarding the theft or loss of a registered firearm.
The instructions on Form 3310.11 also provide that FFLs must reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry in the Record of Acquisition and Disposition (A&D Record) required by subpart H of 27 CFR part 478 (formerly 178). The disposition entry should indicate whether the incident is a theft or loss, the ATF-Issued Incident Number, and the Incident Number provided by the local law enforcement agency. The instructions further state that should any of the firearms be located, they should be re-entered into the A&D Record as an acquisition entry. In addition, the “Important Notice” section on Form 3310.11 provides that an FFL who reports a firearm as missing and later discover its whereabouts should advise ATF that the firearm has been located.
The text of the statutory reporting requirement, 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6)—which obligates licensees to report the theft or loss of a firearm “from the licensee's inventory”—does not clearly address the reporting of a firearm that has been stolen or lost in transit. That is, the statute does not expressly address whether such a firearm should be considered part of the inventory of the transferring/shipping FFL, a recipient FFL, or the common carrier transporting the firearm. Similarly, current regulations do not address reporting requirements arising from firearms stolen or lost in transit, including whether the firearms are considered stolen or lost from the inventory of the sending or receiving FFL. This gap in the regulations likely results in no one reporting the theft or loss of a firearm stolen or lost in transit—an anomalous result that the Department believes is contrary to congressional intent in mandating the reporting of thefts and losses generally. Clarifying this responsibility is thus important to the effective administration of the GCA and NFA. Congress delegated the authority to prescribe necessary rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the GCA and NFA to the Attorney General, who has delegated to ATF the authority to investigate, administer, and enforce those laws.
On August 28, 2000, in ATF Notice No. 902, ATF published in the
As a result of the comments received in response to various issues addressed in the document, the Department decided to study the issues further, and it subsequently withdrew these proposals.
On August 12, 2014, ATF published in the
The NPRM specified a time period within which to reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry—
The proposed rule retained the same general approach for transferor/sender FFLs to report thefts or losses in transit as the 2000 NPRM, although there are some important differences. Unlike the 2000 NPRM, the 2014 NPRM did not propose to require FFLs to establish commercial business practices that would enable the FFL to verify that the transferee/buyer of a shipped firearm actually received the firearm. The 2014 NPRM merely solicited comments on whether a transferor/sender FFL should be required to obtain and retain confirmation of receipt. In addition, unlike the 2000 NPRM, the 2014 NPRM proposed to reduce the reporting burden with respect to NFA firearms. The 2014 NPRM also clarified that firearms lost or stolen in transit between FFLs and non-FFLs (not just between FFLs) would be included in the transactions that must be reported by a transferor/sender FFL. Finally, the proposed rule would require the A&D Records to be updated within 7 days of discovery of the theft or loss.
As stated in the 2014 NPRM, theft or loss of firearms in transit continues to be a problem. In its 2000 NPRM, ATF stated that in FY 1999, there were 1,271 crime gun traces in which an FFL claimed to have never received the firearm shipped to it and no one reported the theft or loss to ATF. More recent data from NTC shows that from FY 2010 through FY 2014, there was an average of 1,333 crime gun traces per year where the firearm was traced back to an FFL that claimed it never received the firearm allegedly shipped to it, but no theft or loss was reported to ATF. ATF recognizes that this figure may include some firearms lost or stolen at the licensed premises while not in transit (
As previously noted, the statutory provision requiring licensees to report lost or stolen firearms, 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6), does not clearly address situations in which a firearm is lost or stolen in transit. The Department proposed to interpret section 923(g)(6)'s requirement that a licensee “report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory” to include a responsibility to report a theft or loss that occurs once the licensee has placed a firearm in shipment. Accordingly, the proposed rule specified that, when a firearm is stolen or lost in transit on a common or contract carrier,
The 2014 proposed rule retained most of the current procedures for licensees reporting the theft or loss of firearms subject to the GCA, in accordance with the instructions on Form 3310.11. For example, Instruction 7 on Form 3310.11 provides that FFLs must reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry in the A&D Record that is required by subpart H of part 478 (formerly 178). The form also provides that the disposition entry should indicate whether the incident is a theft or loss, include the ATF-Issued Incident Number, and include the Incident Number provided by the local law enforcement agency. The proposed rule set out these procedures in a new paragraph (e) of 27 CFR 478.39a with two modifications: (1) The rule would prescribe a time period to reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry (
In addition, the “Important Notice” section of Form 3310.11 provides that licensees who report firearms as missing and later discover their whereabouts should advise ATF that the firearms
The proposed rule would also reduce a licensee's reporting burden to ATF for the theft or loss of a registered NFA firearm by allowing submission of one Form 3310.11 to meet the requirements of 27 CFR 478.39a and 27 CFR 479.141. Currently, if a licensee's registered NFA firearm is lost or stolen, the licensee prepares and submits Form 3310.11 to ATF's NTC to comply with the 27 CFR 478.39a requirements, which specify that Form 3310.11 be used. The licensee also provides to ATF's NFA Branch a separate notification—typically in the form of a letter—to comply with 27 CFR 479.141. The proposed rule would revise 27 CFR 478.39a to stipulate that a licensee's submission of a completed Form 3310.11 to ATF for the theft or loss of a registered NFA firearm satisfies the notification requirements under both 27 CFR 478.39a and 27 CFR 479.141. This would reduce the FFLs' reporting burden and help to ensure that information about lost or stolen registered NFA firearms is consistently reported to ATF.
The comment period for Notice No. 40P closed on November 10, 2014.
All public comments were considered in preparing this final rule. In response to Notice 40P, ATF received 14 comments. Comments were submitted by individuals, corporations and other legal entities, FFLs, and trade associations.
Five commenters supported the proposed rule. Commenters who agreed with the proposed rule did so primarily because they believed that the implementation of the rule would help stop the unreported theft or loss of firearms in transit. One commenter agreed with the proposed rule in its entirety because it would allow police to quickly investigate and possibly return missing firearms and simplify FFLs' reporting of stolen or lost firearms registered under the NFA, thus making that process more efficient for both FFLs and ATF.
Nine commenters disagreed with the proposed rule. Commenters who opposed the proposed rule did so for a variety of reasons, with the most common objection relating to ATF's lack of authority to request theft or loss reports of firearms once the firearms have allegedly been transferred from the transferor/sender FFL's inventory. One commenter opposed the proposed rule on “philosophical[]” grounds, claiming that there is over-regulation of commerce by the United States in general, and concluding that “any regulation of transactions involving small arms are uniquely inappropriate a subject for regulation by the national government because of the special provisions of the second amendment to the Constitution.”
Another commenter opposed the proposed rule because he believed that the rule's imposition of the reporting obligation on the transferring/sending FFL was at odds with ATF's alleged “statement to the press” that the rule “applies to” carriers. He further stated that “[a]s written the regulation is ripe for abuse, should be rewritten so that the ATF can understand its own intent.” Another commenter noted that “[c]urrent ATF rules are clear regarding the manufacturer's responsibility to report lost or stolen firearms that are under their control. The proposed new rule imposes an unrealistic burden on manufacturers to report same after the firearm has left its premise and has exited its disposition log.” One commenter stated that the “issue of firearms lost in transit does not need solving because it is not a problem,” and that ATF is “trying to solve a problem that does not exist.” The following sections address the specific comments on the proposed rule.
Regarding the comment that the transaction of small arms is not an appropriate subject for regulation by the national government because of the Second Amendment, the Department does not believe anything in this rule is inconsistent with that constitutional amendment. Congress has long regulated the transportation and shipment of firearms,
Some commenters asserted that ATF lacks the legal authority to impose the proposed rule because, in 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6), Congress only mandated reporting of lost or stolen firearms when those firearms are currently in the “inventory or collection” of the FFL. These commenters argued that ATF impermissibly exceeded its statutory bounds in interpreting the requirement that licensees report “the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory” to require licensees to report the theft or loss of firearms after the firearms are no longer in the transferring FFL's possession or on their premises; such an interpretation, the commenters argued, is at odds with the plain meaning of the word “inventory.” Citing
Congress delegated the authority to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the GCA to the Attorney General, who has delegated to ATF the authority to investigate, administer, and enforce those laws.
The present rulemaking reflects ATF's interpretation of the theft or loss reporting requirement set forth in the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6). Congress did not define the term “inventory” or the phrase “from the licensee's inventory” in 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6) or elsewhere in the GCA. Nor did Congress expressly limit the licensee's reporting obligation to firearms that are lost or stolen from the licensee's premises: unlike 18 U.S.C. 922(u), for instance, which makes it unlawful to steal “
Commenters argued that, in the absence of a statutory definition of the word “inventory,” the Department must use the word's plain or ordinary meaning, and they offered various definitions culled from a few sources in an effort to elucidate what that meaning is. But rather than revealing a clear commonality, the definitions in the commenters' cited sources instead show that the word “inventory” can take on slightly different meanings suited to the particular contexts in which it used.
Elsewhere in the law, physical possession is often neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be counted as inventory. The section of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governing secured transactions, for example, defines “inventory” to include not only goods “held by a person,” but also goods “furnished by a person,” and “leased by a person,” irrespective of who has them. U.C.C. 9-102(a)(48);
Given its many meanings, the Department is of the view that the word “inventory” is ambiguous, and that Congress did not specifically intend—by use of the word—to deprive the Department of the authority to require FFLs to report the loss or theft of firearms in transit. That view is supported by multiple dictionaries that define inventory broadly to encompass any goods and articles that might appropriately be listed on an inventory.
In the context of section 923(g)(6) specifically, the Department believes that the obligation to report lost or stolen “firearm[s] from the licensee's inventory” is best understood to encompass firearms that are not yet in the physical possession of a transferee that the transferor is best positioned to monitor and control. The Department believes that this interpretation of the word “inventory” is consistent with the flexible, context-specific character of the term as used elsewhere in the law.
Further, it is more logical—and more consistent with the GCA scheme—to consider an in-transit firearm as part of the shipping FFL's inventory and thereby place the reporting obligation on the transferor/sender licensee rather than the firearm's intended recipient. The GCA scheme relies on firearms dealers to control commerce in firearms.
In reaching its interpretation of 923(g)(6)'s reporting mandate, the Department considered whether the “inventory” determination should be made in accordance with the variable approach of the UCC regarding the transfer of title for risk of loss purposes. The Department determined that neither the text nor the purpose of the GCA counseled in favor of adopting the UCC approach to determining in whose “inventory” a firearm belongs. As explained in the proposed rule, the UCC approach focuses on the ownership of the goods being shipped for the purposes of allocating the risk of loss, but the primary focus of the GCA and its implementing regulations is, instead, the tracking of the acquisition and disposition of firearms. Accordingly—and as the Department will explain in further detail below—the Department is of the view that the statutory obligation on firearms licensees to report a theft or loss should not turn on technicalities of commercial law regarding whether the seller or buyer has title to, or bears the risk of loss of, the shipped firearms.
Instead, under the final rule, the theft or loss reporting requirement will always remain with the transferor/sender FFL, who will know how and when firearms sent to the transferee were shipped. As the Department reasoned in the 2014 NPRM, the transferee will have an incentive to notify the transferor about any discrepancies in the shipment because the transferee would not want to pay for an item the transferee did not actually receive. Upon being contacted by the transferee about a shipment discrepancy, the transferor FFL will be in the best position to verify the theft or loss by reviewing its transaction records and the shipping information from the carrier. The transferor could also be in a position to discover that the discrepancy was instead due to recordkeeping or other human error. Indeed, regardless of whether the transferee or transferor arranges the shipment, the transferor will know how and when the firearms were shipped. Moreover, if a firearm is stolen or lost in transit, the notation in the transferor's/sender's acquisition and disposition book indicating the firearm was disposed of to a particular transferee/buyer would be inaccurate.
The Department's interpretation that in-transit firearms remain in the transferring/sending FFL's “inventory” for purposes of section 923(g)(6) is further supported by the fact that an FFL's delivery of firearms to a common or contract carrier for transport does not result in a “disposition” or “transfer” unless and until the firearms are received by the transferee. The Department does not believe that the GCA scheme, which sets forth procedures for conveying firearms by carriers,
Finally, the Department's interpreting the phrase “firearm[s] from the licensee's inventory” to encompass firearms that a licensee has placed in transit accords with the congressional intent behind the GCA more generally. The GCA is a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to closely track the acquisition and disposition of firearms to ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of criminals, and so that the firearms can be traced if later found to have been used in crime. Accordingly, section 923(g)(6) mandates that “[e]ach licensee shall report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory or collection.” To be sure, Congress did not specifically address whether licensees must report the theft or loss of firearms in transit once the licensee ships the firearm to another recipient. Nor did Congress address how those firearms must be recorded in the transferor/sender FFL's acquisition and disposition records. But the text of 923(g)(6) does not foreclose the Department's interpretation of the term “inventory.” And the final rule reasonably answers the questions left unaddressed by Congress by interpreting the reporting requirement to include a firearm stolen or lost from the licensee's inventory while in transit with a carrier, and by providing guidance on how FFLs must update their records in such situations. Adopting a contrary interpretation of the statutory language to the effect that thefts or losses of firearms in transit need not be reported by
For all those reasons, the Department's determination that the statutory obligation to report “the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory” in section 923(g)(6) encompasses an obligation to report the theft or loss of a firearm that the licensee has shipped amounts to a reasonable construction of the GCA.
With regard to the comment concerning ATF's authority to require “best practices” to monitor shipments of firearms once the shipments depart the FFL's facility, the final rule does not require FFLs to monitor their shipments. Again, FFLs will only be required to report thefts and losses once they discover a theft or loss.
One commenter argued that the proposed rule is inconsistent with established commercial business practices. Citing U.C.C. 2-319, the commenter asserted that “firearms are almost universally shipped `F.O.B. Factory,' ” indicating that once physical custody has passed at the place of shipment, so has legal title to the firearms and risk of loss.
The Department disputes the commenter's factual assertion that firearms “are almost universally shipped `F.O.B. Factory.' ” The Department believes that transferor/sender FFLs generally select the means by which the firearms in their inventory are shipped and secure insurance from the carriers for the value of the firearms. While these costs may be passed along to buyers in the purchase contracts, the Department believes that in many, if not most, cases, the transferor/sender FFL is legally responsible for any losses incurred in transit. This is because many, if not most, firearm purchase contracts require delivery at a specified destination.
Even if the commenter's factual assertion were proven correct, however, the Department would nonetheless adhere to the position it expressed in the proposed rule that the UCC should not be used to determine the responsibility for reporting thefts and losses of firearms in transit. Adopting the variable UCC approach for reporting firearms stolen or lost in transit would be problematic for FFLs to apply and for ATF to enforce. Instead of being able to follow a single, consistent rule holding the transferor FFL responsible for reporting stolen or lost firearms in every transaction (should a theft or loss be discovered), FFLs in a transaction would need to examine each individual contract to determine who has the reporting responsibility. For that same reason, it would be impracticable for ATF to ensure regulatory reporting compliance under the variable UCC approach.
The UCC does not address whether a merchant must report thefts or losses of goods in transit; rather, the UCC approach focuses on the ownership of the goods being shipped and allocating the risk of loss for purposes of commercial law. By contrast, the primary focus of the GCA and its implementing regulations is on the acquisition, disposition, and misuse of firearms in service of public safety objectives.
Other Federal agency regulations support the conclusion that transferors should be required to report the theft or loss of regulated goods in transit. For example, since 1974, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has required by rule that suppliers—
Five commenters supported the requirement to report a theft or loss of firearms in transit in part or in the requirement's entirety. One commenter supported the use of Form 3310.11 to report the theft or loss of firearms in transit to simultaneously meet the requirements of §§ 478.39a and 479.141. Another commenter supported the requirement that FFLs notify local authorities as well as ATF, stating that “[t]his is a very serious issue and the more authorities that are notified of the issue, the more likely it is to be resolved.” The same commenter also agreed that transferring/sending FFLs should have the responsibility to report a theft or loss of a firearm in transit because a transferring/sending FFL has access to the shipping history and, therefore, should have better knowledge of the firearm's whereabouts and would be able to “effectively report” the theft or loss of the firearm.
Two commenters made statements to the effect that “[t]he updated regulations will help strengthen our nation['s] ability to track firearms that are lost or stolen while in transit” and that a single method of reporting such thefts and losses to ATF and local authorities should be adopted. Although those two commenters supported notification of theft or loss by the transferring/sending
Several commenters who opposed the proposed rule did so based on the claim that, once a firearm is logged out of the transferring/sending FFL's A&D Record, it is no longer the responsibility of that FFL. One commenter asserted that the shipping companies instead have responsibility for the shipment and should therefore be required to report any in-transit thefts or losses.
Three commenters had practical concerns about the transferor/sender licensee bearing the responsibility to report the theft or loss of a firearm in transit because, even though a transferor/sender might receive confirmation that the firearms were delivered, such confirmation might not reflect whether the full amount of firearms was received; that discrepancy might only become apparent once the recipient compares the shipping invoice to the specific firearms ordered. Those commenters stated that the transferee in such a situation would be in a better position to know and report whether a firearm was received. The commenters explained that the transferee would have more incentive to report a firearm shipment stolen or lost because businesses are not in the habit of paying for products they do not actually receive.
The reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6), requires FFLs to report the theft or loss of firearms from their inventories or collections not only to the Attorney General (delegated to ATF) but also to “the appropriate local authorities.” Thus, as a statutory requirement, the report must be submitted to such local authorities even if it is refused. The Department believes that if the report is made to the local authorities with proper jurisdiction over the incident (
The Department does not agree with one commenter's suggestion that common or contract carriers should be held legally responsible under this rule for reporting the theft or loss of firearms while in transit. The commenter who proposed that the reporting obligation lie with the carriers did not cite any statutory authority under which such a requirement could be imposed. Congress did not ignore the role of common or contract carriers in firearms transactions in the GCA. For example, it is unlawful for a common or contract carrier to transport or deliver any firearm shipment in violation of the GCA, or to deliver a firearm without obtaining written acknowledgment of receipt.
Instead, the GCA's scheme relies on firearms dealers to control commerce in firearms and places the burden of reporting stolen and lost firearms on licensees. As we have explained, it is reasonable to interpret the phrase “from the licensee's inventory” to require transferor/sender licensees to report the thefts or losses of firearms they have placed in transit. In addition, the transferor/sender FFL is in the best position to verify the theft or loss by reviewing its records and the shipping information from the carrier that was utilized. The transferor/sender FFL may also discover that the discrepancy is due to a recordkeeping or other human error, or a theft or loss at the licensed premises, rather than a theft or loss in transit. To be sure, ATF has long encouraged carriers to file theft and loss reports and issued ATF Form 3310.6, Interstate Firearms Shipment Theft/Loss Report, to assist carriers in reporting. However, ATF considers such reporting merely voluntary, not clearly required by statute.
Regarding the comment alleging that ATF made a conflicting statement to the press to the effect that this rulemaking would apply to “the carriers” rather than FFLs, ATF has not been able to locate any such statement. Both the 2000 and 2014 proposed rules consistently identified the transferor/sender licensee as the person who would be responsible for reporting thefts and losses of firearms in transit.
One commenter agreed with the basic process outlined in the proposed rule, but stated that the rule should clarify the type of shipping documents the transferring FFL must retain and for how long. Additionally, the commenter suggested that the proposed time frame for licensees to update their A&D Records to reflect a theft or loss—“7 days following discovery of the theft or loss”—be extended to a longer term. The same commenter also recommended that disposition entries for shipped items not be entered into the A&D Record until the shipment has been received (by the transferee) or declared lost (by the carrier). The commenter asked for clarification on when the “discovery” of the theft or loss occurs if the transferor/sender is waiting for proof of delivery to make a “final disposition entry.” The commenter further suggested that maintaining the complete electronic tracking record would be a good idea, but that the licensee should be able to dispose of the records a week after the carrier's tracking system (or the recipient's acknowledgment) indicates that the shipment has been received, because otherwise the paperwork could become burdensome.
Another commenter argued that no signature should be required for a shipment and that the rule should not require proof of delivery to be retained. The commenter explained that “[t]his burden should not fall on the shipping [FFL],” because “someone acting nefariously on the receiving end could refute any signature or proof of delivery very easily.”
Another commenter opposed the rule on the basis that the transferor/sender cannot know that the firearm has been stolen or lost in transit until the intended recipient or the carrier notifies the transferor/sender, and the commenter did not know what would constitute notification. The same commenter further asserted that if FFLs are to timely report theft or loss of firearms in transit they must rely upon shipping companies to “provide accurate information.”
Two other commenters believed that imposing the burden on manufacturers—particularly those that ship thousands of firearms—to report the theft or loss of firearms no longer under the manufacturers' control would be unrealistic. As one commenter complained, “The resulting logistical burden would be enormous, and require an estimated 2-3 full time personnel to manually track, log and store documentation related to the hundreds or thousands of open orders on any given day.” Another commenter projected that ATF's estimated time of 24 minutes to complete Form 3310.11 was too low.
In light of comments received, the Department has chosen not to implement a recordkeeping requirement related to shipment and delivery paperwork at this time. While the 2000 proposed rule would have required FFLs to establish commercial business practices to verify delivery, this final rule does not require licensees to track shipments or receive verification of receipt. There is only a reporting requirement once the transferor/sender FFL discovers that one or more firearms have been lost or stolen in transit. As stated previously, the FFL's discovery may come from contact with the intended recipient, the common or contract carrier, a witness, or some other person. In accordance with section 923(g)(6), licensees are required to report the theft or loss in transit to ATF and appropriate local authorities within 48 hours after discovery.
Licensees will have up to 7 days to reflect the theft or loss of the firearm with a correct disposition entry in the A&D Record. This is consistent with the longstanding firearms disposition reporting requirement for licensed dealers under 27 CFR 478.125(e). ATF understands that there will be instances in which licensees must make corrections to the existing disposition information in their A&D Records to reflect the theft or loss of firearms. In those instances, the FFL should draw a single line through the disposition information. If there is room in the disposition block, the FFL should record the date of the theft or loss, the ATF-Issued Incident Number, and the local authority Incident Number. The licensee should then initial and date the changes. Alternatively, if there is no room in the disposition block to legibly record the required information, the FFL should line-out the disposition information and initial and date the change. The FFL should then make a new entry in the next available line in the current A&D Record. In that case, the FFL must enter a reference to the new book, page, and line number in the disposition side of the updated record, and use the new entry to record the date of the theft or loss, the ATF-Issued Incident Number, and the local authority Incident Number.
Though the number of responding FFLs will grow due to the expansion of the reporting requirements, the estimate of 24 minutes' average completion time for Form 3310.11 will not increase. Form 3310.11 has been utilized since 1994 for the reporting of firearms thefts and losses and this rulemaking makes no significant changes to Form 3310.11 that would lead to an increase in the time required to complete it.
One commenter supported the proposed rule because the rule “would close a loophole in federal regulations that lets thousands of lost and stolen guns go unreported.” The commenter believed that if FFLs were required to promptly report guns lost and stolen, illegal gun trafficking would be curtailed and guns would be kept out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
Several commenters asserted that requiring the reporting of firearms stolen or lost in transit would not lead to any appreciable benefits. They questioned whether such reporting would make ATF or local police more successful in an investigation or in tracing firearms. They suggested that the costs of imposing the reporting requirement on licensees exceed any benefits to law enforcement.
The moment the theft of a firearm occurs, the firearm has been diverted to an illegal channel and is a threat to public safety. The knowledge that a particular firearm has been diverted is important to law enforcement at the local and Federal levels. A law enforcement agency cannot charge a suspect in possession of a firearm with a theft if there is no information that the firearm was stolen. An agency may not retain a firearm from a suspect if there is no information that the property was stolen. And an agency that has retained such a firearm cannot return the firearm to its rightful owner if there is no information about who the rightful owner might be. Without proper reporting of thefts, law enforcement may not be able link the person(s) who stole the firearm with the suspect who ultimately is found in possession of the firearm.
In addition, even where a report is made to local law enforcement, in-transit shipments often result in interstate or cross-jurisdictional activities. Such activities are the purview of Federal law enforcement, which is designed to bridge jurisdictional gaps and provide assets not available to local law enforcement. ATF has found patterns in thefts in interstate shipments that can only be developed through the examination of aggregate data. This data often includes seemingly separate and unrelated individual incidents of theft over a period of time, which, when analyzed in the aggregate, reveal commonalities that allow ATF to dismantle larger criminal schemes. This process is highly dependent upon the collection of accurate interstate shipment theft information.
In FY 2015, 313 firearms that interstate carriers had voluntarily reported as lost or stolen were recovered and traced by law enforcement agencies. In the past 5 years, 25 firearms that interstate carriers had voluntarily reported as lost or stolen were recovered and traced and the recovering agency reported that they were engaged in a homicide investigation involving the recovered firearm. Carriers voluntarily reported that information to ATF, and those numbers do not reflect the additional amount of firearms lost or stolen in transit that will be reported to ATF by FFLs pursuant to this rule. Such additional reporting will allow law enforcement to open more criminal
In addition to ensuring that thefts and losses of firearms are reported, the procedures outlined in this rule seek to eliminate redundancy in reporting. By designating the transferor/sender FFL as the required reporting party, confusion about who needs to report the incident will be reduced.
This final rule adopts, with minor changes, the proposed amendment to 27 CFR 478.39a requiring the transferor/sender FFL to notify ATF and the appropriate local authorities when a firearm is stolen or lost in transit. For purposes of this final rule, the Department considers the U.S. Postal Service a “common or contract carrier.” Therefore, the regulatory text of the proposed § 478.39a(a)(2) is amended to read as: “common or contract carrier (which for purposes of this paragraph includes the U.S. Postal Service).”
Upon the effective date of this final rule, transferor/sender licensees will be required to use Form 3310.11 to notify ATF of firearms stolen or lost in transit. For stolen or lost NFA firearms, submitting Form 3310.11 will satisfy the requirements of 27 CFR 478.39 and 479.141. In addition, transferor/sender FFLs must reflect the theft or loss of a firearm in transit as a disposition entry in their required records not later than 7 days following discovery of the theft or loss. The rule also specifies that FFLs that report theft or loss of a firearm and later discover its whereabouts must advise ATF that the firearm has been located, and must re-enter the firearm into their required records as an acquisition or disposition entry as appropriate. These recordkeeping requirements apply whether the firearm is stolen or lost in transit between FFLs or between a licensee and a nonlicensee.
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b).
The Department of Justice has determined that this final rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section (f), and accordingly this final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Accordingly, this final rule is not an “economically significant” rulemaking under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 both direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this final regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.
Under 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6) and its current implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.39a, each FFL must report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory or collection within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. The licensee must report the theft or loss of a firearm to ATF and to the appropriate local authorities. Current regulations do not specify reporting and recordkeeping requirements for firearms lost or stolen while in transit. This final rule specifies that when a firearm is stolen or lost in transit, for reporting purposes it is considered stolen or lost from the transferor's/sender's inventory.
The GCA and the current implementing regulations have long required that a licensee must report the theft or loss of a firearm. This final rule specifies that a transferor/sender licensee is required to submit the required report if a firearm is lost or stolen in transit on a common or contract carrier from that licensee to another person. This final rule retains most of the existing requirements under 27 CFR part 478, subpart H, and the instructions for Form 3310.11 with respect to how FFLs are to record the theft or loss of firearms from their inventories in their A&D Records.
The final rule will reduce the current reporting burden on licensees when the theft or loss involves a registered NFA firearm. Currently, as discussed in section I, a licensee must submit Form 3310.11 to NTC to comply with 27 CFR 478.39a and, if the licensee is the person who lost the firearm, provide additional notification to the NFA Branch to comply with 27 CFR 479.141. Under this final rule, to meet the 27 CFR 478.39a requirements, a licensee must complete and submit Form 3310.11 to NTC. If the theft or loss involves a registered NFA firearm, NTC will notify the NFA Branch. This will satisfy the 27 CFR 479.141 notification requirements; licensees will no longer have to submit additional notification about NFA firearms to ATF.
Although there is no definite count of the total number of firearms that were lost or stolen in transit, ATF can provide an estimate based on tracing data. From FY 2010 through FY 2014, there was an average of 1,333 crime gun traces per year where the firearm was traced back to an FFL that claimed it never received the firearm allegedly shipped to it, but no theft or loss was reported to ATF.
Pursuant to the instructions on Form 3310.11, a separate form is required for each theft or loss. ATF estimates that it takes an FFL 24 minutes to complete Form 3310.11; the postage cost to mail the form to NTC is 49 cents. If FFLs complete a separate Form 3310.11 for each of the average of 1,333 firearms that tracing data indicates are lost or stolen each year but are not currently being reported, ATF estimates the total burden hours to be 533 (1,333 × 24/60), and the current estimated cost to be $18,350. (Cost of completing the form = 24 minutes at $33.19 per hour × 1,333 = $17,697; Cost of mailing the form =
The instructions on Form 3310.11 also provide that FFLs must report firearms thefts or losses by telephone to ATF. ATF estimates that it takes an FFL 24 minutes to call and provide the requisite information to ATF. If an FFL called ATF for each of the average of 1,333 firearms that tracing data indicates are lost or stolen each year but are not currently being reported, ATF estimates the total burden hours to be 533 (1,333 x 24/60), and the current estimated cost is $17,697 (24 minutes at $33.19 per hour × 1,333).
Therefore, the combined total estimated burden hours for submitting Form 3310.11 and calling ATF are 1,066 (533 + 533). The combined total estimated cost of fulfilling those same two requirements is $36,047 ($18,350 + $17,697).
Alternatives, such as the UCC variable approach discussed in section III of the
In addition, this final rule will alleviate reporting burdens on licensees in that licensees will need only report the theft or loss of a registered NFA firearm once to ATF instead of reporting the incident separately to NTC and the NFA Branch. As the licensee is providing much of the same information under both reporting requirements, ATF estimates that it takes the same amount of time and cost for postage, and ATF uses the same hourly compensation as listed above (
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6) and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.39a, each FFL must report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory or collection within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. The licensee must report the theft or loss of a firearm to ATF and to the appropriate local authorities. This final rule clarifies that when a firearm is stolen or lost in transit, for reporting purposes, it is considered stolen or lost from the transferor/sender FFL's inventory.
As discussed in section I of this preamble, the current regulation requires that an FFL report thefts or losses telephonically to ATF and complete and submit to NTC a separate Form 3310.11 for each theft or loss. ATF estimates the time to complete the form as 24 minutes, the time for the telephone call as 24 minutes, and the postage cost as 49 cents. If an FFL called ATF to report the theft or loss and completed a separate Form 3310.11 for each of the average of 1,333 firearms that tracing data indicates are lost or stolen each year but are not currently being reported, ATF estimates the total cost of completing and mailing the form and calling ATF to be $36,047. See section VI.A. for a full discussion of these costs. Therefore, this final rule will not impose a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This final rule revises an existing reporting and recordkeeping requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act. It also eliminates an existing reporting requirement. The current regulation at 27 CFR 478.39a provides that each FFL must report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory or collection within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. Licensees must report such
Pursuant to 27 CFR 479.141 and according to the instructions on Form 3310.11, licensees reporting the theft or loss of registered NFA firearms must provide additional notification to ATF. As discussed in section I, no form exists for this purpose, and the person reporting typically submits a letter with the required information to the NFA Branch. As part of this rulemaking, Form 3310.11, approved under OMB control number 1140-0039, will capture the information required by 27 CFR 479.141. Therefore, under this final rule, a licensee will satisfy its obligation to provide the required notification to the NFA Branch by submitting Form 3310.11 to NTC, and NTC will notify the NFA Branch. Submitting Form 3310.11 will satisfy the requirements of both 27 CFR 478.39a and 27 CFR 479.141 with one notification.
In addition, the instructions on Form 3310.11 state that a licensee must reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry in the A&D Record required by subpart H of part 478 (formerly 178). These instructions further state that the disposition entry should indicate whether the incident is a theft or loss and include the ATF-Issued Incident Number and the Incident Number provided by the local law enforcement agency. Finally, the instructions state that if the firearms are located, they should be re-entered in the A&D Record as acquisition entries. The final rule adds both sets of these instructions to the regulatory text in 27 CFR 478.39a with modifications. See section V for full discussion of these revisions.
The information collection required by 27 CFR 478.39a—
The author of this document is Denise Brown, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 478 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
(a)(1) Each licensee shall report the theft or loss of a firearm from the licensee's inventory (including any firearm which has been transferred from the licensee's inventory to a personal collection and held as a personal firearm for at least 1 year), or from the collection of a licensed collector, within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered.
(2) When a firearm is stolen or lost in transit on a common or contract carrier (which for purposes of this paragraph includes the U.S. Postal Service), it is considered stolen or lost from the transferor/sender licensee's inventory for reporting purposes. Therefore, the transferor/sender of the stolen or lost firearm shall report the theft or loss of the firearm within 48 hours after the transferor/sender discovers the theft or loss.
(b) Each licensee shall report the theft or loss by telephoning ATF at 1-888-930-9275 (nationwide toll-free number), and by preparing and submitting to ATF a Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report, ATF Form 3310.11, in accordance with the instructions on the form. The original of the report shall be retained by the licensee as part of the licensee's required records.
(c) When a licensee submits to ATF a Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report, ATF Form 3310.11, for the theft or loss of a firearm registered under the National Firearms Act, this report also satisfies the notification requirement under § 479.141 of this chapter.
(d) Theft or loss of any firearm shall also be reported to the appropriate local authorities. If the location of the theft or loss is known, the local law enforcement agency at that location would be the appropriate local authority. Otherwise, the report should be made to the local law enforcement authorities at the licensee's location or business premises.
(e) Licensees shall reflect the theft or loss of a firearm as a disposition entry in the Record of Acquisition and Disposition required by subpart H of this part not later than 7 days following discovery of the theft or loss. The disposition entry shall record whether the incident is a theft or loss, the ATF-Issued Incident Number, and the Incident Number provided by the local law enforcement agency.
(f) Licensees who report the theft or loss of a firearm and later discover its whereabouts shall advise ATF at 1-888-930-9275 (nationwide toll-free number) that the firearm has been located, and shall re-enter the firearm in the Record of Acquisition and Disposition as an acquisition or disposition entry as appropriate.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is amending its regulations concerning the offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt, centralized offset of Federal payments to collect nontax debts owed to the United States, salary offset, and transfer of debts to Treasury for collection. The amendment adjusts the time period in which Federal agencies must notify the Secretary of the Treasury of past due, nontax debt for the purposes of administrative offset. A statutory change, enacted as part of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, shortened the period of delinquency within which Federal agencies are required to notify the Secretary of past due, nontax debt from 180 days to 120 days.
This rule is effective January 12, 2016.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 401 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20227.
Section 5 of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, Public Law 113-101, amended a provision of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, codified at 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6), to change the time by which Federal agencies must notify the Secretary of the Treasury of past due, nontax debts for the purposes of administrative offset. The amendment changes the notice requirement from 180 days delinquent to 120 days delinquent.
The changes to this rule conform to the statutory language by removing references to 180 days in the sections relating to: Offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt; centralized offset of Federal payments to collect nontax debts owed to the United States; salary offset; and the transfer of debts to Treasury for collection. In each instance, “180 days” is replaced with “120 days.” In addition, the rule makes revisions to address agencies that transfer debts to Fiscal Service for debt collection services and on behalf of which Fiscal Service submits debt for administrative offset. Federal agencies that are owed debt must transfer any debt that is more than 180 days delinquent to Fiscal Service for debt collection services. Administrative offset is one of the collection tools used by Fiscal Service to collect debt. Therefore, agencies transferring debts to Fiscal Service for debt collection are able to satisfy the notification requirement for administrative offset and the requirement to transfer delinquent debts with a single referral. Because the notice requirement for administrative offset is now 120 days and not 180 days, agencies relying on Fiscal Service to submit debts for administrative offset on their behalf must transfer the debts no later than 120 days after they become delinquent in order to meet the notification requirement for administrative offset. Agencies that do not rely on Fiscal Service to submit their debts for administrative offset must still transfer their debts no later than 180 days after they become delinquent.
This rule is being issued without prior public notice and comment because the changes to the rule are being made to conform to statutory requirements. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3), good cause exists to determine that notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The amendments made by this rule merely mirror amendments already enacted into law. Further delay in making these amendments would create an inconsistency between the law and the regulations and would cause confusion.
The final rule does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the regulatory review procedures contained therein do not apply.
Because no notice of rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et seq.) do not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Child welfare, Claims, Credits, Debts, Disability benefits, Federal employees, Garnishment of wages, Hearing and appeal procedures, Loan programs, Privacy, Railroad retirement, Railroad unemployment insurance, Salaries, Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Taxes, Veterans' benefits, Wages.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we are amending 31 CFR part 285 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5514; 26 U.S.C. 6402; 31 U.S.C. 321, 3701, 3711, 3716, 3719, 3720A, 3720B, 3720D; 42 U.S.C. 664; E.O. 13019, 61 FR 51763, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 216.
(c) * * *
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, a creditor agency shall transfer any debt that is more than 180 days delinquent to Fiscal Service for debt collection services. Agencies that transfer delinquent debts to Fiscal Service for the purposes of debt collection and that rely on Fiscal Service to submit the transferred debts for administrative offset on the agency's behalf must transfer the debts to Fiscal Service no later than 120 days after the debts become delinquent in order to satisfy the 120-day notice requirement for purposes of administrative offset. For accounting and reporting purposes, the debt remains on the books and records of the agency which transferred the debt.
(3)(i) A debt is considered delinquent for purposes of this section if it is past due and is legally enforceable. A debt is past-due if it has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial written demand for payment or applicable agreement or instrument (including a post-delinquency payment agreement) unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made. A debt is legally enforceable if there has been a final agency determination that the debt, in the amount stated, is due and there are no legal bars to collection action. Where, for example, a debt is the subject of a pending administrative review process required by statute or regulation and collection action during the review process is prohibited, the debt is not considered legally enforceable for purposes of mandatory transfer to Fiscal Service and is not to be transferred even if the debt is more than 180 days past-due.
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on August 28, 2015, to address the emissions statement requirements for the State's portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area” or “Area”). Annual emissions reporting (
This final rule is effective February 11, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0247. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at
On August 28, 2015, MDEQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA that seeks to add 11 Mississippi Administrative Code (MAC), Part 2, Chapter 11, “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas,”
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 10, 2015, EPA proposed to approve Mississippi's June 1, 2015, draft SIP revision submitted for parallel processing that sought to add new Rules 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 from Title 11 of the Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 11 into the SIP.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporate by reference of Title 11 of the MAC, Part 2, Chapter 11 entitled “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Nonattainment Areas,” which adds a new Rule 11.1—
EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by Mississippi on August 28, 2015, to incorporate 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 11, “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Nonattainment Areas,” into its SIP to meet the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements requirement for the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission meets the requirements of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; availability of final post-delisting monitoring plan.
The best available scientific and commercial data indicate that
This rule becomes effective February 11, 2016.
The final rule is available on the Internet at
Dawn Gardiner, Assistant Field Supervisor, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, Corpus Christi, at the above address, or telephone 361-994-9005 or email to
Recovery actions for Johnston's frankenia have resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of threats due to: (1) A significant increase in the number of documented populations; (2) a major expansion of the known range for the species; (3) a population estimate of more than 4 million plants; (4) the species' ability to successfully outcompete nonnative grasses, recolonize disturbed areas, and tolerate grazing in the specialized habitat it occupies indicates it is more resilient than previously believed; and (5) improved management practices as a result of outreach activities to, and cooperative agreements with, landowners. Our review of the status of this species shows that populations are stable, threats are addressed, and adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place so that the species is not currently, and is not likely to become, an endangered species within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range.
The regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 424.22(d) state that a species may be delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) it recovers, or (3) the original classification data were in error. In the proposed rule of May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961), the Service proposed to delist Johnston's frankenia due to an expansion of our knowledge of the species' known range, the number of newly discovered populations—some with large numbers of individual plants, increased knowledge of the life-history requirements of the species, and clarification of the degree of threats to its continued existence. The species is also being delisted because recovery efforts have improved the species' status, and the current new data show that removing Johnston's frankenia from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants is warranted.
Federal Government actions on this species began with section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct. This report (House Document No. 94-51), which included Johnston's frankenia in the endangered category, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, the Service published a notice in the
Additional information regarding previous Federal actions for Johnston's frankenia can be obtained by consulting the species' regulatory profile found at:
Johnston's frankenia
When Johnston's frankenia was originally listed, there were six known populations, with five occurring in Starr and Zapata Counties, and one population in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. All of the U.S. populations occurred on private lands and encompassed a 35-mile (mi) (56-kilometer (km)) radius, with the population in Mexico located approximately 125 mi (201 km) to the west. Since the publication of the proposed rule to delist Johnston's frankenia in May 2003, the total number of known populations in Texas is at least 68, covering approximately 2,031 sq mi (5,260 sq km), in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties, and at least 4 populations in Mexico (Price
Since the original listing in 1984 when 1,000 plants were counted, additional Johnston's frankenia surveys were completed in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties (Janssen 1999, entire; Price et al. 2006, p. 10 in Attachment B and pp. 2-5 in Attachment C; Janssen 2007, pers. comm.; Janssen 2010, pp. 5-6). The results of these status surveys showed a substantial increase in individual plants to at least 4 million plants.
Further biological information (
Based on best available information there is no evidence to suggest the number of populations and their numbers have declined since the 2011 proposed rule.
In the proposed rule to delist Johnston's frankenia published on May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by August 20, 2003. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published. During the 2003 comment period, we received nine public comment letters. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
On October 25, 2011 (76 FR 66018), we reopened the comment period for the proposed rule of May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961), included updated information, and requested public comment on the Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan. During the 2011 comment period, we received four public comment letters.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Johnston's frankenia and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from four peer reviewers during the original comment period associated with the proposed delisting rule on May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27961).
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Johnston's frankenia. Substantive comments received during the comment period are addressed below and, where appropriate, incorporated directly into this final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan.
The use of the word “secure” was used with the understanding that the term referred only to active voluntary agreements. We do not presume to know any landowner intentions beyond these agreements, thus our post-delisting monitoring plan identifies measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Johnston's frankenia protected habitat, distribution, and persistence for all three counties.
The voluntary protection of Johnston's frankenia on privately owned lands is important, and we conclude that the improved management practices as a result of outreach activities to landowners, and cooperative agreements with landowners, has been very beneficial to this species. However, the key reasons
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed, and preparation of a draft and 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 identifies site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the species' status, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species, define criteria that are designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act, and provide guidance to our Federal, State, and other governmental and nongovernmental partners on methods to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and the species is robust enough to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be discovered that were not known when the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Johnston's Frankenia Recovery Plan was approved by the Service on May 24, 1988 (Service 1988). In the case of Johnston's frankenia, the overarching goal of the final recovery plan was to remove the need for protection under the Act by managing the species and its habitat in a way that would ensure the continued existence of self-sustaining populations. Objective, measurable, and adequate recovery criteria that would provide a reference point for down-listing or delisting were not established in the recovery plan. The plan's author concluded that the lack of available biological and life-history information
The recovery plan's implementation schedule identified a list of actions that were needed to reduce and remove threats and move the species toward recovery. These actions included (1) maintaining the present populations through landowner agreements and habitat management; (2) providing permanent Service or conservation group protection for at least one population; (3) identifying essential habitat and searching for additional populations; (4) conducting field and greenhouse studies of the life history and ecology of the species to determine habitat requirements, vegetative physiognomy and community structure, and population biology; (5) applying data from studies to develop management recommendations; (6) monitoring populations; and (7) carrying out a campaign to develop public awareness, appreciation, and support for preservation of the species.
The listing of Johnston's frankenia and implementation of actions in the recovery plan generated increased inventory and research activities for the species throughout its known range. Among the primary conservation actions undertaken for the species was a 6-year (1993-1999) project by the TPWD to intensively survey for additional populations, conduct field and greenhouse studies to characterize the habitat requirements and life history of the species, develop a landowner outreach program to increase awareness of this unique plant, develop a voluntary conservation agreement for landowners, and coordinate with agricultural technical assistance providers to transfer knowledge regarding best management for conservation of this species (Janssen 1999, entire). Subsequent to 2000, additional botanical surveys in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties in Texas included Johnston's frankenia as a target species, and conservation agreements were also signed as part of this recovery effort (Price
The extensive survey efforts mentioned above led to population discoveries that have expanded the known range of the species as well as significantly increasing the number of known populations, some with large numbers of individual plants. Studies of the species' biology and ecology increased knowledge of the life-history requirements of this species, lessening the degree of perceived threat associated with low reproductive potential and the competition from nonnative grasses. Information gathered from these studies has enhanced our understanding of this species' capability to survive, and even to recolonize, in the specialized habitat in which it grows. Habitat losses from large-scale clearing of native vegetation and planting to pasture grasses have diminished in scope as private landowners have diversified their income-generating activities to include increased hunting opportunities, which depend on keeping more acreage in native brush habitat. Also, education and outreach efforts targeted to landowners have helped to elucidate the economic disadvantage of trying to plant pasture grasses on the hypersaline (elevated salt levels) soils inhabited by Johnston's frankenia.
Because Johnston's frankenia occurs mostly on privately owned land, the recovery plan identified protection of at least one population on land controlled by the Service or a conservation group as a needed action. Now the species is known to occur on one tract of the Refuge where it is protected. Also, portions of two other populations extend onto land controlled by the USIBWC, which has indicated willingness to recognize the species as sensitive following delisting, allowing for prescribed avoidance of impacts to the species. Portions of two populations on private lands also extend onto TxDOT right-of-way in Zapata County, one along Highway 83 and the other along Highway 469. Signs have been erected to protect the plants from mowing at the Highway 83 right-of-way site.
Recovery actions have resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of threats due to: (1) A significant increase in the number of documented populations, (2) a major expansion of the known range for the species, (3) a population estimate of more than a million plants, (4) the its ability to successfully outcompete nonnative grasses in the specialized habitat it occupies indicating the species is more resilient than previously thought, and (5) improved management practices as a result of outreach activities to, and cooperative agreements with, landowners.
In summary, the implementation of the majority of actions in the recovery plan produced the information that led the Service to conclude not only that the species is more widespread and abundant than was known when it was listed, but also that the magnitude of the threats facing this species are not as severe as they were believed to be at the time of listing and are better managed for many populations now.
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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) other natural or human made factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened (as is the case with the Johnston's frankenia); and (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
A species is “endangered” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a “significant portion of its range” and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a “significant portion of its range.” The word “range” in the significant portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the
At the time of listing, we considered Johnston's frankenia to be vulnerable to extinction due to the following: (1) Threats to the integrity of the species' habitat such as clearing, then planting of nonnative grasses to improve pasture; (2) direct loss from construction associated with highways, residential development, and oil- and natural gas-related activities; (3) the low number and restricted distribution of populations; (4) low numbers of individual plants; and (5) the species' low reproductive potential. The following analysis examines all five factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the Johnston's frankenia within the foreseeable future.
As early as the 1930's, ranchers were converting their rangeland to buffelgrass due to increasing concern with drought. Buffelgrass is drought-resistant and was brought in to improve grazing on ranches where soils had been extensively cleared and root-plowed. Initial concerns regarding Johnston's frankenia vulnerability to competition from nonnative, invasive grass species planted for grazing have been lessened by the results of research on this species' life history requirements (Janssen 1999, pp. 161-172). Ecological research shows that long-term replacement of Johnston's frankenia by buffelgrass (
To address conservation concerns associated with agricultural land management practices, during 1995 and 1996, the TPWD conducted an extensive endangered and rare species education and outreach campaign in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties that included activities such as landowner meetings, coordination with the NRCS, county fair exhibits, development of printed information, and school presentations. This campaign promoted conservation of Johnston's frankenia, in part by sharing the results of Janssen's field studies on the ecology and biology of this species. In October 2000, a presentation was made to NRCS District Conservationists from Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties to emphasize their agency's role in helping landowners identify and avoid impacts to Johnston's frankenia population sites, especially in light of the lack of success converting the land cover on these hyper-saline sites to pastures of buffelgrass. In 2001 and 2007, the NRCS District Conservationists for Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties reiterated that their approach to promoting conservation of this species is to educate landowners about the presence of Johnston's frankenia on their land and to encourage landowners to leave the Johnston's frankenia community intact, avoiding clearing of this unique brush assemblage (Ibarra 2001, pers. comm.; Saenz 2007, pers. comm.).
In summary, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Starr and Zapata Counties, the level of threat to Johnston's frankenia communities from agricultural land-conversion activities has diminished due to depressed economic conditions in cattle ranching and increased economic benefits from wildlife-related recreation that leads to less clearing of native brush (Ibarra 2001, pers. comm.; Saenz 2007, pers. comm.). Though the voluntary conservation agreements are beneficial, the primary reasons that the Service is proposing to delist Johnston's frankenia are the significant increase in the number of documented populations, a major expansion of the known range for the species, and a population estimate of more than 4 million plants, combined with the reduction in threats such as land conversion to grazing pastures. These larger numbers and more expansive range coupled with the lack of overall threats is the basis for delisting.
The threats to Johnston's frankenia populations from oil and gas development have also been minimized due to lack of exposure. The Service used a GIS-based analysis of the distribution of Johnston's frankenia populations in relation to locations of existing and proposed roads associated with industrial development (Shelley and Pulich 2000, p. 11) to pinpoint the U.S. populations most likely to be threatened within the next 20 years as well as those populations furthest removed from these types of threats. Based on the populations identified in the 1999 report, the results of this analysis showed that 15 of the intermediate-sized and largest populations, containing approximately 4 million plants (77 percent of documented plants), remain in remote locations on rangeland, where threats from industrial construction activities are diminished. Thirteen of the smallest (fewer than 2,000 individuals) Johnston's frankenia populations, containing approximately 5,300 plants (0.1 percent), also occur on remote rangeland, removed from roads associated with industrial and residential construction threats. The populations discovered in 2004 and 2007, containing approximately 4,400 plants (0.09 percent of total known Texas plants) are on isolated rangeland as well, removed from the threat of industrial and residential development in the foreseeable future (Price
To address conservation concerns associated with industrial activities, voluntary agreements were developed. The TPWD voluntary landowner conservation agreements proved effective in avoiding oil- and natural gas-related activity impacts on four ranches in Zapata County. Each landowner requested a Johnston's frankenia survey, which led to the gas company surveying a much larger (50-square-mile (80.5-sq-km)) area prior to initiating any work. In addition, mitigation measures were included on all projects, which included flagging any Johnston's frankenia sites, walking seismic lines instead of driving, and the presence of an onsite monitor to protect populations (Shelley and Pulich 2000, p. 9; Janssen 2006, pers. comm.; Janssen 2010, pers. comm.). As of December 2011, Janssen (2012, pers. comm.) worked with The Nature Conservancy to get three ranch landowner conservation agreements signed and to ensure installation of gate signs and “stay on the road” signs to protect Johnston's frankenia populations. One energy company became aware of the existence of these agreements through leasing negotiations with a signatory landowner who requested Johnston's frankenia surveys prior to seismic exploration.
In summary, the threats to Johnston's frankenia populations from oil and gas development have been minimized due to lack of exposure to these activities, and voluntary conservation agreements provide an additional layer of confidence for the future status of the species.
Residential development has not been uniformly distributed across the three counties; instead, people are concentrating residential development in a few geographic areas, with the highest level of growth in and around the City of Laredo in Webb County. Major areas of growth follow the primary transportation corridors including Interstate 35 and Highway 83, and along the Rio Grande River downstream of the Falcon Reservoir (Shelley and Pulich 2000, p. 5). According to Shelley and Pulich (2000, p. 5), relatively few people are living far from the cities and highways.
The Service used a GIS-based analysis of the distribution of Johnston's frankenia populations in relation to locations of existing and proposed highways associated with residential development (Shelley and Pulich 2000, p. 11). The GIS modeling results provide data confirming that residential development impacts such as road and home construction would be minimal since the majority of Johnston's frankenia populations are found on isolated rangeland (see
If the current trend in population growth holds, this growth is unlikely to impact the majority of Johnston's frankenia populations that are distant from centers of residential development or transportation corridors. Also, the high salinity of the soils supporting Johnston's frankenia, in conjunction with the arid climate of the area, results in highly erodible soils, which are not desired by most real estate developers (Shelley and Pulich 2000, p. 8). Existing Johnston's frankenia populations that are distant from current development are likely to continue to thrive in their unique environment (Shelley and Pulich 2000, pp. 8, 11).
Public lands on which Johnston's frankenia occurs include Refuge and USIBWC-controlled lands including Falcon Reservoir, and sites on two TxDOT right-of-ways. All three sites (and possibly a fourth where landownership is unknown) on Federal land are small populations, and TxDOT right-of-way sites have a combined total of only 536 individual plants.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge ensures the continued protection of this species where it extends onto their tract by regular monitoring of the previously mapped and known populations (Best 2004, pers. comm.; Castillo 2007, pers. comm.). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) (Refuge Improvement Act) establishes a conservation mission for Refuges. The Refuge Improvement Act requires all refuges to have an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge lists specific management objectives for threatened and endangered plants. The Refuge has indicated that they will continue to implement these actions following delisting (Castillo 2007, pers. comm.). In part, these management objectives include the following actions: (1) Monitor populations of threatened and endangered floral and faunal species on Refuge tracts and throughout the area of ecological concern, (2) implement recovery objectives identified in recovery plans, and (3) in conjunction with the various lead offices, determine threatened and endangered species needs on the Refuge and develop strategies to provide for such needs. These strategies include habitat enhancement and restoration, support
For the portions of two populations that extend on to lands managed by the USIBWC, they have agreed to continue protection of the species after delisting by designating this plant as a sensitive species (Borunda 2004, pers. comm.; Anaya 2013, pers. comm.). The USIBWC has indicated that it will recommend avoidance of impacts to Johnston's frankenia when coordinating with entities seeking access for projects on this land (Echlin 2004, pers. comm.; Anaya 2013, pers. comm.). This designation will allow consideration for these populations during project review by a number of Federal agencies, including the Service, as USIBWC requires licenses or permits for any proposed activities that cross or encroach upon the floodplains within their jurisdiction (USIBWC 2000, p. 2). The USIBWC has indicated that its agency does not carry out active management activities around Falcon Reservoir, such as mowing or clearing, on the land where Johnston's frankenia occurs, although any future flooding that refills the reservoir could conceivably impact the populations if the water level rises significantly above current levels (Echlin 2004, pers. comm.). Even though USIBWC has agreed to continue protection of these two portions of Johnston's frankenia populations, which we anticipate will continue into the foreseeable future, we are not placing undue reliance on the conservation of these areas. Considering the known occurrence of 68 widely distributed populations that number into the millions of plants, we find that the potential loss of any portion of these two populations would be insignificant to the species as a whole.
Portions of two Johnston's frankenia populations, one consisting of 36 plants and the other estimated to contain around 500 plants, exist on TxDOT right-of-ways with the remainder of both populations extending onto neighboring private ranches. The TxDOT manages for rare plants in right-of-ways under a Memorandum of Understanding with TPWD. Stipulations include outlining the perimeter of the population with reflector stakes, restrictive signage, and no mowing, blading, or herbicides within delineated areas (TXDOT 2001, entire). As long as Johnston's frankenia remains on the Texas Conservation Action Plan's Species of Greatest Conservation Need list, it will continue to be covered (Poole 2013, pers. comm.).
In a further effort to promote conservation of populations occurring on private land, TPWD initiated a voluntary conservation agreement program in 1995 to protect Johnston's frankenia from mechanical and chemical habitat alteration and overstocking of cattle. The conservation agreements included recommendations for land management practices that would avoid root plowing, bulldozing, disking, roller chopping, and herbicide applications in Johnston's frankenia sites, as well as using stocking rates appropriate to acreage and rainfall. The agreements also allowed TPWD staff, with prior landowner contact, to enter the property at least once per year to survey and monitor each population site for the 10-year life of the agreement and to compile this information in a report. The agreements included provisions for landowners to contact TPWD whenever damage accidentally occurs or is anticipated so that TPWD could inspect Johnston's frankenia populations and make recommendations for avoidance or recovery. The agreements also provided for TPWD to act as the landowner's liaison to the Service on any occasion in which concerns regarding this species were raised. The TPWD has agreed to work closely with the FWS to implement the post-delisting monitoring plan (Anaya 2013, pers. comm.).
In summary, while voluntary conservation agreements are not considered essential for the survival of this species, they provide additional confidence for its long-term security and the threats to Johnston's frankenia populations from residential development have been minimized due to lack of exposure to such development.
Beyond documenting new populations, climate change was not analyzed in the 2003 proposal to delist. In our 2011 proposed rule, we outlined the state of our knowledge on climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 5, 8, 12, 13, and 15; Seager
As part of the current, worldwide collaboration in climate modelling under the IPCC, climate assessments of the full dataset of 30 climate models for historical and 21st century comparisons provide predictions at scales ranging from global to county level in the U.S. (USGS National Climate Change Viewer 2015;
At the state level for Texas as a whole, these models depict a temperature increase into the future in both mean maximum and minimum temperatures annually. Between 1950-2005 and 2025-2049, the mean model prediction (of 30 models) in annual maximum temperature is an increase of 3.2-3.6 °F (from the 1950-2005 average of 77.7 °F to 81.0-81.3 °F between 2025-2049) under 2 different scenarios for Texas. The lesser value of a 3.2 °F change is dependent on lower greenhouse gas emissions, while the greater value of a 3.6 °F change represents a higher greenhouse gas emission scenario into the future. At this time, we lack the ability to predict which scenario will be more accurate; hence both scenarios are analyzed to create the predicted range of change. Further time frames, from 1950-2005 to 2050-2074, and then from 1950-2005 to 2075-2099, predict an increase of an average of 4.3-6.1 °F and 5.0-9.0 °F, respectively, in annual mean maximum temperatures (USGS National Climate Change Viewer 2015;
Higher resolution information for annual mean maximum temperature at the county level for Starr, Webb, and Zapata counties reveals similar trends (Table 1). For example, for Webb County, which is the largest of the counties and farthest to the north, the annual mean maximum temperature from 1950-2005 at 84.4 °F will increase by 3.1 to 3.4 °F, to 87.4 to 87.8 °F, by the 2025-2049 time period; by 2050-2074, there will be a change by 4.1 to 5.9 °F, to 88.5 to 90.3 °F average annual maximum temperature. Between 1950-
Annual Mean Maximum Temperature (°F)—Each new time frame is compared to the original temperature averaged during the 1950-2005 period, bolded.
At the state level, precipitation changes for Texas are expected to be minimal yet still in a predicted decreasing trend. Model means indicate an average change in mean precipitation from 1950-2005 to 2025-2049 to be 0.0 to −0.4 to inches/day × 100, (from 7.5 to 7.1−7.5 inches/day × 100) followed by the same predictions from 2050-2074, and then all models settle on a solid −0.4 inches/day × 100 loss into the 2075-2099 time frame, indicating a slight loss in precipitation. This loss of precipitation may be enhanced by the predicted increase in the annual mean evaporative deficit, which will lead to drier overall conditions. The evaporative deficit annual mean rate for Texas from 1950-2005 was 1.4 inches/month for both scenarios. This deficit grows to 1.8 inches/month in the 2025-2049 predictions, and to 1.9−2.2 inches/month in the 2050-2074 range, followed by an increased evaporative deficit into 2075-2099 of 2.0−2.6 inches/month.
At the county level, the annual mean precipitation appears to have no change for Webb County from the 1950-2005 to the 2075-2099 time period; however, both Starr and Zapata Counties indicate a similar slight decrease in precipitation by −0.4 inches/day × 100 over the same time period (Table 2).
Annual Mean Precipitation (inches/day × 100)—Each new time frame is compared to the original temperature averaged during the 1950-2005 period, bolded.
Data depicting annual mean evaporative deficit was calculated using the same set of 30 models and two scenarios, and was simulated using the temperature and precipitation models at the county level for Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties (Alder and Hostetler, 2013, p. 10). As seen in Table 3, an increase in water lost to evaporative processes is expected for all three counties. Webb County has the lowest level of current water deficit (at 2.3 inches/month lost to evaporation and plant transpiration), and has the least pronounced increase in water deficit of the three counties into the future. Starr and Zapata Counties currently have a higher water deficit (at 2.5 inches/month of water lost), yet Zapata County shows the most pronounced future predicted water deficit of the three counties (Table 3). Monthly averages of evaporative deficit are predicted to show enhanced peaks in the warmer months from current levels, starting in May and ranging through August, with a steadily growing peak in July through the range of time frames. This indicates that the evaporative deficit will become more extreme in the warmer months, especially in July, compared to rates occurring today.
Annual Mean Water Deficit (inches/month)—Each new time frame is compared to the original temperature
A fourth climate variable available at a county level is annual mean runoff, measured in inches/month. Although the overall runoff amount over the year will likely remain the same throughout the time periods of the climate models, reflecting a similar amount per month, future time series predictions show runoff occurring in more extreme events than those experienced during the 1950-2005 period (USGS National Climate Change Viewer 2015;
Collectively, climate information for the counties of Starr, Webb, and Zapata in south western Texas predicts future patterns of increasing temperatures, somewhat stable precipitation, and increasing evaporative deficits into the future, at a gradual rate. This suggests a gradual trend toward hotter, drier conditions for the Johnston's frankenia. The interaction of these climate variables with other local topographic, edaphic, and microclimate conditions, as well as local ecological interactions, leads to a complexity of possible outcomes for the future status of Johnston's. For instance, localized evaporative loss will be dependent on soil type, chemistry, content of organic matter, root depth, and overall vegetative cover, among other factors. As Johnston's frankenia is known to live in washes, being in this type of location could buffer impacts of water loss from increased temperatures and increased evapo-transpiration due to greater shading and access to moisture. Moreover, if rainfall events become more intense, the hydrological flow into drainages and washes could either benefit Johnston's frankenia or lead to increased gully erosion and potentially scour out individual Johnston's frankenia plants. Therefore, it is difficult to predict how climate will impact this species throughout its range into the future.
Nevertheless, we believe that increasing global temperatures and drought conditions will likely have little impact on Johnston's frankenia because this species is well adapted to the warm, arid landscape of south Texas. Despite the drought of 2011, and because this species is drought-deciduous (leaves sprout after small rain events), Johnston's frankenia populations remained stable (Janssen 2012, pers. comm.). In addition, we suggest that climate change may actually benefit Johnston's frankenia by making the landscape more arid, thus reducing competition with other less physiologically adapted plants. However, we continue to lack specific evidence as to how climate change will directly or indirectly affect this species.
Johnston's frankenia is not a highly collected or sought after species. There is no evidence to indicate that this species is currently or will be collected for any commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purpose.
In the original 1984 listing rule, all the known populations were located in heavily grazed rangelands (Turner 1980, entire). Detrimental effects referred to in the recovery plan (Service 1988, pp. 12-13) were browsing of tender, new growth that might contribute to lowered reproductive success, direct trampling of young plants or seedlings, and soil compaction, which may negatively affect germination. Janssen observed that the population showing the most harmful effects of grazing was one where the fenced area was inadequate to support the number of cattle being stocked and the animals were not receiving any type of supplemental feed (Janssen and Williamson 1993, p. 8; Janssen, 1999, p. 9). Observations of cottontail rabbits and jackrabbits nibbling on Johnston's frankenia indicate a likelihood that other mammals will also browse on this plant (Janssen 2001, pers. comm.). Janssen (1999, p. 9) did not entirely agree that grazing was heavy across the entire range or that it was a major threat as mentioned in the recovery plan (Service 1988, pp. 11-13) based on Turner's (1980, p. 6) observations. Based on Janssen's 6 years of field observations, she felt there was little difference in the appearance of Johnston's frankenia populations between ranches with and without cattle, and because the majority of the populations were remote and dispersed enough to minimize concentrated grazing impacts, Janssen concluded that grazing should not be considered a direct threat (Janssen 1999, p. 9).
There is no evidence to indicate that Johnston's frankenia is threatened by any disease. Therefore, we conclude that disease is not a current or foreseeable threat to the species.
Prior to the species' listing in 1984, no Federal or State laws protected Johnston's frankenia (49 FR 31418, August 7, 1984), and its known distribution was limited to Starr and Zapata Counties. As previously described, implementation of specific recovery actions and surveys have resulted in and documented many more individuals, sites, and populations than were previously known. In addition, the majority of these populations are located on private land. Endangered plants do not receive a high degree of protection on private property under the Act. If the landowner is not using Federal funding or does not require any type of Federal permit or authorization, listed plants may be removed at any time unless prohibited by State law. Under Chapter 88 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, any Texas plant that is placed on the Federal list as endangered is also required to be listed by the State as endangered. The State prohibits taking and possession of listed plants for commercial sale, or sale of all or any part of an endangered, threatened, or protected plant from public lands.
The Service anticipates Texas removing Johnston's frankenia from its State list of endangered species as a result of the Federal delisting. State law, similar to the Act, primarily provides protection on public lands, and Johnston's frankenia primarily occurs on private land and is, therefore, by and large, not protected by State law. Therefore, the State delisting is not expected to result in a significant change in its protective status.
In the original 1984 listing rule, certain inherent biological characteristics, including small numbers of individuals, restricted distribution, and low reproductive potential, were thought to affect the continued existence of Johnston's frankenia. The recovery plan for Johnston's frankenia referred to the approximately 1,000 plants known at the time of listing and their occurrence in small populations with none greater than a few hundred plants, implying a small gene pool with limited variability and, therefore, a diminished capacity for tolerating stresses and threats (Service 1988, p. 11). However, the recovery plan also indicated that scattered populations, disjunct distributions, and low reproductive capacity are commonly seen in the genus
Data were collected on reproductive characteristics from six large populations in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties (Janssen 1999, pp. 177-212). Results of field observations showed that this species flowers throughout the year, but less abundantly in winter, with the highest numbers of flowers and fruit in spring and early summer. The percentage of seed set among populations that Janssen studied ranged 15-30 percent. Turner (1980, p. 6) observed seed set at less than 50 percent for Johnston's frankenia. Using seed viability tests, Janssen (1999, p. 182) found 31 percent of the seeds were viable. Results of soil seed bank analysis from three populations over 1 year yielded the germination of only four total seedlings (Janssen 1999, pp. 177-212). All attempts at germination in a greenhouse ended in failure, which was attributed to insufficient light conditions within the greenhouse (Janssen and Williamson 1996, p. 182; Janssen 1999, p. 182). Poole noted that seedlings are rarely seen (Service 1988, p. 12). Seedling recruitment studies monitoring 2 populations over 2 years documented 32 of 39 seedlings (82 percent) surviving in 1 population and 17 of 18 (94 percent) surviving in the other (Janssen 1999, pp. 203-204). With respect to these factors, Johnston's frankenia has low fruit-to-flower ratio, low seed set, and low seed viability. Janssen (1999, pp. 208-212) acknowledged that her results regarding these factors might reflect decreased
The seeds are small in size, may remain for the most part in the above-ground litter, and probably could not emerge if buried deep. The seed's thin coat is suited for absorbing water rapidly and germinating. This may be the reason that, despite low seed set and viability, those seeds that do germinate have a high rate of recruitment (82 and 85 percent in the two populations studied). The fruit does not appear to be specialized for dispersal, and seedlings are always found in close proximity to the parent. Timing of germination and seedling size are critical in determining the fate of seedlings. The variation in timing of germination and seedling survival seen in Johnston's frankenia may be tied to rainfall amounts. Seedling loss seems to be primarily a result of browsing, trampling, and lack of precipitation Janssen 1999, p. 212).
The results of Janssen and Williamson's (1996, pp. 13-16) reproductive analysis of Johnston's frankenia showed this species to be a generalist with respect to pollinators. A large variety of diurnal (daytime) pollinators visited Johnston's frankenia flowers including flies, bees, and butterflies, with bee flies and bees being the most common. Plant species, like Johnston's frankenia, that have the capacity to attract multiple pollinators, reduce the risk of population declines due to the disappearance of one pollinator. The high rate of floral visitation to Johnston's frankenia by these insects shows the plant to be competing successfully for pollinators (Janssen 1999, pp. 197-198, 208). Although Johnston's frankenia is readily cross-pollinated, this species also has a floral morphology that allows self-pollination, and self-compatibility is indicated (Janssen and Williamson 1996, pp. 13-16; Janssen 1999, pp. 194-196, 208). Janssen (1999, pp. 208-209) concluded that “although self-pollination can result in less genetic variability, it may not be so detrimental for plants that occupy narrow ecological habitats.”
In summary, though studies to address the question of low reproductive potential were conducted on a limited number of populations, research results indicated low fruit-to-flower ratio, low seed set, low seed viability, nonpersistent seed bank, and small and thin-walled seeds. Combined, these biological traits would suggest low reproductive potential for Johnston's frankenia despite having multiple pollinators.
At the time of the Johnston's frankenia listing in 1984, the Service knew of only two counties in Texas (Starr and Zapata) and one locality in Mexico where this plant occurred. Approximately 1,000 plants in 5 populations were known to exist in a 35-mi (56-km) radius area in Texas, and several hundred plants in Mexico. We concluded that there were relatively small populations occurring in highly specialized habitats on rocky gypseous hillsides or saline flats. All known populations were located on privately owned lands with poor rangeland conditions. The plants were not reproducing well and showed signs of having been browsed by cattle. Given the small number of plants, their restricted distribution, land management practices that could potentially degrade or destroy habitat, the impact of grazing on the plants, and the low reproductive potential of the species, Johnston's frankenia was regarded as a species in danger of becoming extinct.
After reviewing new information on the status of Johnston's frankenia, the Service proposed to remove this plant from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants under the Act in 2003. This plant was then known to occur in three counties in south Texas (Starr, Webb, and Zapata) and several northeastern states of Mexico (Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas). And by 2011, additional surveys found a total of more than 4 million plants in 68 populations ranging over an area of approximately 2,031 sq mi (5,260 sq km) in Texas, and 4 healthy populations in Mexico. As a result of increased recovery efforts, extensive surveys in south Texas have shown Johnston's frankenia to be much more widespread and abundant than was known at the time of listing or when the recovery plan was prepared.
By 2003, the Service indicated that, although the reproductive characteristics of Johnston's frankenia may contribute to its low reproductive potential, this plant appears to be well adapted to the arid climate and saline soils that it inhabits. The species takes advantage of sporadic rainfall events and uses the moisture to germinate quickly. It readily cross-pollinates, but also has the capability to self-fertilize. This plant is a generalist with respect to pollinators, thus reducing the danger associated with the decline of any one pollinator. And, although the reproductive characteristics of Johnston's frankenia may contribute to a reproductive potential that is relatively low, there does not appear to be any reason for the gene pool to be more restricted now than it was in the past.
At the time of the Johnston's frankenia listing in 1984, the Service summarized the threat of habitat modification in terms of agricultural practices such as grazing and use of chaining and plowing with supplemental planting of nonnative grasses for pastures. By 2003, the Service found these threats to be minimal because use of nonnative grasses did not prove to result in any competitive disadvantage to Johnston's frankenia. The species has also shown the ability to regenerate and recolonize areas that were formerly root-plowed pastures. Recent observations over a 6-year period revealed little difference in Johnston's frankenia abundance in grazed areas versus non-grazed areas. In addition, the species has a much broader distribution than originally thought, and the majority of the populations are remote and dispersed enough to minimize concentrated grazing impacts. In addition, ranchers in the area are now retaining more native brush and grass habitat to enhance wildlife hunting opportunities instead of planting nonnative species for crops.
No data were available at the time of listing with regard to the future increase in industrial activities and residential development in Johnston's frankenia habitat. In 2003, the Service addressed these potential threats in conjunction with the significant increase in populations over a much larger range, and found that sizable populations were in areas relatively isolated from industrial and residential development. The species' ability to recover from some level of ground disturbance has also minimized concerns regarding these threats. In addition, education and voluntary conservation easements are expected to continue to benefit Johnston's frankenia in the future.
In summary, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Johnston's frankenia. We have found that the magnitude of habitat stressors is far reduced. Overall, we now know that this plant has multiple populations distributed widely across a much broader area than previously known, with an estimated total number of 4 million individual plants. Johnston's frankenia appears to be well adapted to its semi-arid environment, and has the ability to recover from several types of disturbance, including currently anticipated changes likely from climate change. Its range of genetic variation due to number of plants, populations, and locations will allow the species' adaptive capabilities to be conserved. Further, increased awareness and a number of voluntary conservation agreements are likely to reduce potential for new threats impacting the species. Any remaining stressors that may negatively affect individuals or populations are not expected to cumulatively affect the species as a whole. Based on the analysis above and given the lack of overall threats and the large population numbers previously described in this final rule, Johnston's frankenia does not currently meet the Act's definition of endangered, in that it is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, or the definition of threatened, in that it is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all its range.
Having determined that Johnston's frankenia does not meet the definition of endangered or threatened throughout its range, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range that are in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered. A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the conservation of the species as evaluated based upon its representation, resiliency, or redundancy.
If we identify any portions of a species' range that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether in fact the species is endangered or threatened in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient for the Service to address the significance question first and in others the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there. If the Service determines that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant.
For Johnston's frankenia, we applied the process described above to determine whether any portions of the range warranted further consideration. As discussed above, a portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the species. While there is some variability in the habitats occupied by Johnston's frankenia across its range, the basic ecological components required for the species to complete its life cycle are present throughout the habitats occupied by the 68 populations. No specific location within the current range of the species provides a unique or biologically significant function that is not found in other portions of the range. The currently occupied range of Johnston's frankenia encompasses approximately 2,031 sq mi (5,260 sq km) in Starr, Webb, and Zapata Counties in Texas.
In conclusion, major threats to Johnston's frankenia have been reduced, managed, or eliminated. Though habitat modifications will continue to occur (agricultural land management practices, industry activities, and residential development), the resulting impacts are expected to affect a smaller number of individual plants rather than entire populations due to increased awareness and voluntary conservation efforts. Therefore, we have determined that Johnston's frankenia is not in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range nor is it likely to become endangered now or within the foreseeable future throughout all or any significant portion of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we believe that Johnston's frankenia no longer requires the protection of the Act, and we remove Johnston's frankenia from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).
This final rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove the Johnston's frankenia from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this species, this rule will not affect 50 CFR 17.96.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies are no longer required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Johnston's frankenia.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
We have finalized a Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for Johnston's frankenia that identifies measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Johnston's frankenia protected habitat, distribution, and persistence. The Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan will consist of two approaches: (1) Use remote sensing in a
The final Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan is available with this final rule at
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 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 have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this rule.
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at
The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, Corpus Christi (see
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; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule to amend the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program regulation to establish a timeframe for filing civil actions or claims against the United States based on 5 U.S.C. Chapter 870 (Life Insurance).
Comments are due on or before March 14, 2016.
Send written comments to Ronald Brown, Policy Analyst, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 4312, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415; or FAX to 202-606-0636. You may also submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) “3206-AN21,” using the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Ronald Brown, Policy Analyst at
This proposed rule is intended to: (1) Establish a timeframe for filing legal action for judicial review of OPM or employing agency final action on FEGLI claims; and (2) provide a 3-year time limit for filing a court claim for review of agency or retirement system final decisions.
OPM intends to amend the FEGLI Program regulation to provide a timeframe for individuals seeking judicial Current OPM regulations provide a 31-day time limit for administrative review under FEGLI but do not state a time limit for seeking judicial review of FEGLI decisions. Accordingly, OPM has specified a 3-year time limit for filing a claim for court review of FEGLI decisions.
OPM is granted the authority in 5 U.S.C. 8716 to prescribe regulations to carry out the FEGLI Program. Thus, we propose to amend the FEGLI regulation to add section 5 CFR 870.106 concerning court review of final administrative life insurance decisions. The proposed rule also reinforces that individuals must first exhaust administrative appeal rights before seeking judicial review.
OPM has examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule is not considered a major rule because there will be a minimal impact on costs to Federal agencies.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects life insurance benefits of Federal employees and retirees.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Hostages, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Life insurance, Retirement.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 870 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8716; Subpart J also issued under section 599C of Public Law 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 870.302(a)(3)(ii) also issued under section 153 of Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec. 870.302(a)(3) also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) and (c) of Public Law 105-33, 111Stat. 251, and section 7(e) of Public Law 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 870.302(a)(3) also issued under section 145 of Public Law 106-522, 114 Stat. 2472; Secs. 870.302(b)(8), 870.601(a), and 870.602(b) also issued under Public Law 110-279, 122 Stat. 2604; Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8702(c); Sec. 870.601(d)(3) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8706(d); Sec. 870.703(e)(1) also issued under section 502 of Public Law 110-177, 121 Stat. 2542; Sec. 870.705 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8714b(c) and 8714c(c); Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 521.
(a) A suit to review the legality of an agency or retirement system final decision on FEGLI eligibility must be filed in the district courts of the United States or the United States Court of Federal Claims.
(b) A suit to review the legality of an agency or retirement system final decision on change of coverage, designation of beneficiary, or assignment of life insurance, must be filed in the district courts of the United States or United States Court of Federal Claims.
(c) An action under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section:
(1) May not be brought prior to exhaustion of the administrative remedies provided in Sec. 870.105 of this part; and
(2) May not be brought later than December 31 of the 3rd year after the agency or retirement system final decision to the insured individual.
(3) Exception: This time limit may be extended by 31 calendar days after December 31 of the 3rd year (60 calendar days if overseas) of the date of the final decision to the insured if the individual shows that he or she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it or that he or she was unable, due to reasons beyond his or her control, to make the request within the time limit.
(d) This section does not change the rules found in this chapter regarding FEGLI coverage or premium payments for an employee while in nonpay status.
(e) If a claimant thinks that he or she is due money from FEGLI benefits and that legal action is necessary to get the money, the claimant must take action in Federal court against the company that OPM contracts with to adjudicate claims, not against OPM.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes to better meet the needs of policyholders, to clarify existing policy provisions, and to reduce vulnerability to program fraud, waste, and abuse. Specifically, this proposed rule intends to modify or clarify certain definitions, clarify unit establishment, clarify substantive provisions for consistency with terminology changes, modify the insured causes of loss, clarify required timing for loss notices, modify portions of loss calculation formulas, and address potential misinterpretations or ambiguity related to these issues. The proposed changes will be effective for the 2018 and succeeding crop years.
FCIC will accept written comments on this proposed rule until close of business March 14, 2016. FCIC will consider these comments when FCIC finalizes this rule.
FCIC prefers that interested persons submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-15-0002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change to
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received for any dockets by the name of the person submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Interested persons may review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov at
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
This rule has been determined to be not-significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the OMB.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or 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 rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.119 Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions, to be effective for the 2018 and succeeding crop years. Changes are intended to improve the insurance coverage offered, address program integrity issues, simplify program administration, and improve clarity of the policy provisions. Specifically, this proposed rule intends to modify or clarify certain definitions, clarify unit establishment, clarify substantive provisions for consistency with terminology changes, modify the insured causes of loss, clarify required timing for loss notices, modify portions of loss calculation formulas, and address potential misinterpretations or ambiguity related to these issues.
Some of the proposed changes result from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI), which has an objective of using common standardized data and terminology to consolidate and simplify reporting requirements for producers. Specifically, ACRSI is an initiative to reengineer the procedures, processes, and standards to simplify commodity, acreage, and production reporting by producers, eliminate or minimize duplication of information collection by multiple agencies, and reduce the burden on producers, allowing the producers to report this information through FSA county office service centers, insurance agents or through precision agriculture technology capabilities. USDA has made a concerted effort to standardize terms across USDA agencies as much as possible to allow the sharing of data, thereby reducing the burden on producers in reporting their information. Many of the changes proposed in this rule are a part of that effort. For example, as part of ACRSI, FCIC is proposing to change the term “crop” to “citrus fruit commodity” and to rename the “citrus fruit commodities” to be consistent with the crop names used by other USDA agencies. FCIC has been working with other USDA agencies to agree on appropriate terminology for crop reporting. These terms are part of a Commodity Validation Table that is updated as these terms are agreed upon. This change will help facilitate information sharing among agencies, a step that is necessary to achieve an ACRSI goal of relieving producers of the burden of reporting the same information multiple times to different USDA agencies. The addition of the term “citrus fruit group” is intended to negate the impact of changes to “citrus fruit commodity” names on coverage levels, unit structure, and administrative fees. The “citrus fruit groups” for each “citrus fruit commodity” will be listed in the Special Provisions. The “citrus fruit groups” will be the basis for determining coverage levels and identifying the insured crop. These proposed changes are not expected to change the current basis by which coverage levels are selected, basic units are established, and administrative fees are assessed.
For consistency with ACRSI objectives, FCIC proposes to expand the category of “type” in the actuarial documents to include four subcategories named “commodity type,” “class,” “subclass,” and “intended use.” FCIC is also planning to expand the category of “practice” in the actuarial documents to include four subcategories named “cropping practice,” “organic practice,” “irrigation practice,” and “interval.” Proposed changes to the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions, such as replacing references to the term “type” with the term “commodity type” will provide a method for this transition.
The proposed changes are as follows:
1. FCIC proposes to remove the paragraph immediately preceding section 1, which refers to the order of priority if a conflict exists among the policy provisions. This same provision is contained in the Basic Provisions. Therefore, the appearance here is duplicative and should be removed from the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions.
FCIC proposes to remove all references to section titles of the Basic Provisions used in the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions, while retaining the section numbers. The section titles are not necessary to reference the section and removing these titles will prevent FCIC from having to revise the Crop Provisions should these section titles change in the Basic Provisions. This information proposed to be removed is currently contained in parenthesis following references to section numbers of the Basic Provisions throughout the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions.
2. Section 1 (“Definitions”)—FCIC proposes to remove the definition of “crop” and replace it with a definition of “citrus fruit commodity” because the actuarial documents refer to commodities rather than crops. FCIC proposes to replace the term “crop”
FCIC proposes to add the definition of “citrus fruit group.” The term “citrus fruit group” refers to a method of grouping combinations of commodity types and intended uses within the citrus fruit commodity through the Special Provisions for the purposes of electing coverage levels and determining the insured crop, which is the basis for establishing basic units, guarantees, and assessing administrative fees. FCIC proposes this change because of ACRSI. Because producers will be reporting using the terminology contained in the Commodity Validation Table, FCIC has changed the commodity names to match this agreed upon terminology. However, the citrus fruit group concept is being implemented to prevent changes to how the crop can be insured. For example, this change will allow producers who report Valencia oranges with an intended use of juice and Navel oranges with an intended use of fresh to continue to insure these as separate crops even though they will both be categorized for reporting under the commodity of oranges.
FCIC proposes to add the definition of “commodity type” because this is a new category that will be added to the actuarial documents for citrus fruit commodities for the 2018 crop year. Commodity type will initially be displayed in the actuarial documents as a subcategory of type. The expected combinations of commodity types and intended uses will be grouped into citrus fruit groups as shown in the table below.
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “excess wind” by: Specifying the equivalent wind speed in knots; clarifying wind speed reporting at U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) reporting stations; and adding a clause to allow additional acceptable wind reporting stations to be identified in the Special Provisions. FCIC proposes these changes to provide clarity and add flexibility to use other weather reporting stations if additional data points are needed in the future.
FCIC proposes to add a definition of “intended use.” Currently, insureds can select between the two types of fresh and juice. For the 2018 crop year, the type category in the actuarial documents will be expanded to include subcategories for “commodity type,” “class,” “subclass,” and “intended use.” Insureds will continue to be able to select types for fresh and juice, but the intended use will be specified in both the type category and the new intended use category. This change only affects how they types are presented in the actuarial documents and will not affect available coverage or reporting requirements. The proposed definition is consistent with the definition contained in the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions.
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “interplanted” to specify that the Crop Provisions definition is used in lieu of the Basic Provisions definition. In the revised definition, FCIC proposes to change the term “crop” to “agricultural commodity.” Agricultural commodity is currently defined in the Basic Provisions as any crop or other commodity produced, regardless of whether or not it is insurable. As stated previously, FCIC is changing the term “crop” to “insured crop” as appropriate throughout the Crop Provisions. However, for the definition of interplanted acreage, changing “crop” to “insured crop” would change the meaning of the provision by preventing interplanted from applying to insurable crops interplanted with agricultural commodities not insured under the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions. Therefore, FCIC proposes to change the term “crop” to “agricultural commodity” in the definition of interplanted acreage. This proposed change will allow “interplanted” to apply to acreage in which an insured crop is interplanted with another insured crop or uninsured agricultural commodity, regardless of whether or not the additional insured crop or uninsured agricultural commodity is insurable under the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions or any other Crop Provisions.
FCIC proposes to remove the definition of “local market price.” FCIC proposes to remove this definition because FCIC proposes to remove the only reference to local market price in the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions, contained in paragraph 12(e).
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” to clarify that the Crop Provisions definition is used in lieu of the Basic Provisions definition. The Basic Provisions contains a different definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” and the Crop Provisions definition has already replaced that definition, but this additional language confirms that interpretation. FCIC also proposes to clarify this “production guarantee (per acre)” definition in the Crop Provisions by specifying that requirements of section 3(e) determine the yield used for calculating the production guarantee.
FCIC proposes to remove the definition of “varieties” because all references to the term are proposed for removal and replacement with the term “commodity type” in the Crop Provisions.
3. Section 2 (“Unit Division”)—FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 2(a) to state that basic units will be established for each insured crop in accordance with section 1 of the Basic Provisions. The definition of basic unit in section 1 of the Basic Provisions states that basic units include all insurable acreage of the insured crop in the county on the date coverage begins for the crop year: (1) In which you have 100 percent crop share; or (2) which is owned by one person and operated by another person on a share basis. Separate basic units will be established for each citrus fruit group because FCIC proposes to treat each citrus fruit group as a separate insured crop. For example, under the new citrus fruit commodity of oranges, all early and midseason oranges will be further classified under one citrus fruit group and all late oranges will be further classified under another citrus fruit group. These designations mean all of the insured's early and midseason orange acreage can be insured as one basic unit and all of the insured late orange acreage can be insured as a separate basic unit. This proposed change in terminology will allow insureds to keep their current unit structure under the new classification system.
FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 2(c) to state that optional units may be established by either of the following options, but not both options: (1) In accordance with Section 34(c) of the Basic Provisions, except as provided in section 2(b) of these Crop Provisions; or (2) non-contiguous land. FCIC proposes this revision to clarify that the insured has a choice of optional units as allowed by the Basic Provisions (except irrigated or non-irrigated practices) or by non-contiguous land. As currently worded, the provision could be misinterpreted to mean that optional units as allowed in the Basic Provisions are not allowed under the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions. In addition, the official Code of Federal Regulations publication appears to have inadvertently omitted the following language from the existing version that appeared in the applicable
4. Section 3 (“Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities”)—FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 3(a) by adding language to allow the insured to continue selecting separate coverage levels and price elections by insured crop (
FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 3(b) by removing the instructions for calculating the production guarantee per acre from paragraphs 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2). FCIC proposes this change because the same information is already contained in the definition of “production guarantee (per acre).” Removing these instructions from 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) will prevent perceived conflict between these provisions and that definition because the information contained in paragraphs 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) for calculating the production guarantee was intended as duplicative, yet is stated differently than the information contained in the definition of “production guarantee (per acre).” FCIC also proposes to revise paragraph 3(b) to state that the production guarantee is progressive and increases from the first stage to the second stage guarantee. FCIC also proposes to remove the term “final,” and leave only the term “second,” in paragraph 3(b)(2). Both final stage and second stage have the same meaning in the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions because there are only two stages and the terms are used interchangeably. Therefore, FCIC proposes to remove the term “final” to prevent potential confusion if the terms “second” and “final” are erroneously perceived to have different meanings.
FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 3(d) by removing the term “type” and replacing the term “type” with the phrase “commodity type and intended use.” This change will provide consistency with the terminology revisions implemented to further ACRSI goals. FCIC proposes to revise paragraphs 3(d)(4) and 3(d)(4)(i) by removing references to “perennial crop” and “crop” and replacing these terms with the term “agricultural commodity.” This change will provide consistency with the proposed changes to the definition of “interplanted.” The proposed change will allow the term “interplanted” to apply to acreage in which an insured crop under these Crop Provisions (
FCIC proposes to designate the undesignated paragraph following paragraph 3(d)(4)(iii) as paragraph 3(e) and redesignate paragraphs 3(e) and 3(f) as paragraphs 3(f) and 3(g). FCIC proposes to revise newly designated paragraph 3(e) to specify the yield adjustment timing and method used, if circumstances occur that may reduce the yield potential, based on when the circumstance occurred. The current provision states that the Approved Insurance Provider will reduce the yield used to establish the production guarantee, but does not explicitly provide additional explanation for timing and method of certain specific circumstances. The proposed paragraph 3(e)(1) addresses circumstances that occurred before the beginning of the insurance period and requires reduction of the yield used to establish the production guarantee for the current crop year regardless of whether the circumstance was due to an insured or uninsured cause of loss and requires the Insured to report these circumstances that occurred prior to the insurance period no later than the production reporting date. The proposed paragraph 3(e)(2) addresses circumstances that occurred after the beginning of the insurance period and the insured notifies the Approved Insurance Provider of these circumstances by the production reporting date. The
FCIC proposes to revise newly designated paragraph 3(g) by removing the reference to “one-year lag period.” The phrase is not necessary to describe when production must be reported. Therefore, FCIC proposes to delete this reference to prevent confusion regarding production reporting. FCIC also proposes to update the example in this paragraph with contemporary dates. This proposed change is intended to prevent the policy from appearing outdated. FCIC also proposes to revise the sentence structure of this provision to provide clarity and consistency with similar provisions in these Crop Provisions that are used in lieu of the Basic Provisions.
5. Section 7 (“Insured Crop”)—FCIC proposes to redesignate the introductory paragraph of section 7 as paragraph (a) and redesignate paragraphs 7(a) through 7(f) as 7(a)(1) through 7(a)(6). FCIC proposes to revise the newly designated paragraph (a) by revising language to designate the insured crop as each “citrus fruit group” the insured elects to insure. This change in section 7 is necessary to prevent changes to assessment of administrative fees because of revisions to commodity names. This change will also allow the insured to continue to elect to insure some citrus acreage and not insure other citrus acreage on the same basis as is currently allowed.
FCIC proposes to revise the newly designated paragraph 7(a)(2) to clarify that the insured crop must be grown on trees adapted to the area. The current provision states the acreage must be adapted to the area. However, the trees on which the insured crop is grown must be adapted to the area.
FCIC proposes to revise the newly designated paragraph 7(a)(3) by removing the term “are” and adding the term “is” in its place. FCIC proposes this change to maintain verb usage consistent with the language in newly redesignated paragraph 7(a).
FCIC proposes to add a new paragraph 7(b) to clarify assessment of administrative fees. FCIC has received requests to clarify how administrative fees are assessed in the Crop Provisions. Because each citrus fruit group will be designated as a separate insured crop, each citrus fruit group will be assessed a separate administrative fee in accordance with section 7 of the Basic Provisions and section 6 of the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement.
6. Section 8 (“Insurable Acreage”)—FCIC proposes to revise section 8 by adding the words “fruit group” immediately following the word “citrus” and removing references to the term “crop” and replacing them with the term “agricultural commodity,” except FCIC will replace the first instance of “crop” appearing in section 8 with “insured crop.” These changes will provide consistency with the proposed changes to the definition of “interplanted.” FCIC also proposes to add language to clarify interplanted acreage is not insurable unless a citrus fruit group is interplanted with another perennial agricultural commodity.
7. Section 10 (“Causes of Loss”)—FCIC proposes to add provisions in paragraph 10(a) that allow insects and disease as insurable causes of loss unless excluded or otherwise restricted through the Special Provisions, provided production losses are not due to damage resulting from insufficient or improper application of control measures recommended by agricultural experts. FCIC proposes to remove the provisions in paragraph 10(b)(1) that only provide coverage against damage or loss of production due to insects and disease if an insurable cause of loss prevents the proper application of control measures, causes properly applied control measures to be ineffective, or causes disease or insect infestation for which no effective control mechanism is available. For Texas citrus fruit, the language contained in paragraph 10(b)(1) requires a determination that can be difficult to make with regard to whether an underlying cause of loss prevented the proper application of control measures, caused properly applied control measures to be ineffective, or caused a disease or insect infestation for which no effective control mechanism is available. The proposed change removes this language and provides more comprehensive coverage for citrus growers. This proposed change is similar to changes FCIC has made to other perennial APH policies, such as the Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions, as they have been revised.
The proposed language provides FCIC with greater flexibility to exclude or restrict coverage through the Special Provisions. This greater flexibility is intended to protect program integrity and insured interests by allowing FCIC to exclude or restrict coverage for certain diseases for which limited controls or mitigation practices are available. For example, FCIC plans to exclude citrus greening (
Citrus greening is a deadly bacterial disease that can infect nearly all citrus species (Chung, K-R., and R. H. Brlansky. “Citrus diseases exotic to Florida: Huanglongbing (citrus greening).” (2009).). The bacteria disrupts the vascular system of the trees and eventually leads to tree death (Jagoueix, Sandrine, Joseph Marie Bové, and Monique Garnier. “PCR detection of the two <<Candidatus>>
Citrus greening is vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid (
Citrus greening was first discovered in Florida in August 2015 and since spread to nearly all counties in Florida with citrus (Brlansky, R. H., et al. “2006 Florida citrus pest management guide: Huanglongbing (citrus greening).” UF/IFAS Extension (2012).). The Asian citrus psyllid was first detected in Texas in 2001 (French, J. V., C. J. Kahlke, and J. V. Da Graça. “First record of the Asian citrus psylla,
The current Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions may appear to provide some level of protection against production loss from citrus greening, but the current policy is unlikely to allow loss payment for citrus greening. The current policy language requires linkage of production loss from insects and disease to another underlying covered cause of loss. For example, a hurricane may occur that could prevent or otherwise negatively impact control measures by spreading the disease to outbreak levels. However, it is unlikely that citrus greening would trigger an indemnity under this scenario because citrus greening symptom latency is unlikely to satisfy the policy provision in section 9 of the Crop Provisions allowing an indemnity payment only for losses occurring within the insurance period. Therefore, if a hurricane spreads the disease into a grove and symptoms do not appear until the next crop year, the current policy would not cover production loss because the insured cause of loss (
Specifically, under circumstances that prevented the proper application of control measures or caused properly applied control measures to be ineffective, it is unlikely that losses in a given year would exceed the deductible under the current policy due to slow disease progression. For example, if excess precipitation prevented or rendered ineffective proper pesticide application, the production loss from trees infected by this event are unlikely to exceed the deductible for the current crop year, even if the highest coverage level was selected. In addition, even if events happened in successive years, the Crop Provisions also authorize underwriting controls that require acreage adjustment when trees are removed or the guarantee to be reduced for existing damage. These underwriting controls would likely prevent or reduce losses due to citrus greening from exceeding the deductible in most situations. Although it may be possible, under some circumstances, that indemnities due to citrus greening could be triggered, the current policy provides subjective or little assurance of protection against citrus greening for the reasons stated above.
When changes to the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions are finalized, FCIC intends to conduct a full rate review to examine the impact of all policy changes combined with past loss experience, which could increase or decrease premium rates. However, if the proposed language covered citrus greening, FCIC would likely have to increase premium rates to account for this risk, with additional rate increases possible based on loss experience to maintain actuarial soundness under section 506(n)(2) (7 U.S.C. 1506(n)(2)) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA or the Act). The benefit of the coverage may not be perceived by growers to be worth the additional premium cost because underwriting controls necessary to protect program integrity are unlikely to allow citrus greening indemnities in most scenarios. Consequently, allowing such coverage may require Approved Insurance Providers to explain underwriting controls precluding indemnity payment when the insured believed it had coverage against citrus greening. In addition, if citrus greening indemnities became widespread and underwriting controls were insufficient to limit indemnities, premium rates could increase rapidly. Texas citrus producers have expressed concern to FCIC about citrus greening coverage contributing to increasing premium rates. FCIC plans to exclude citrus greening as an insurable cause of loss through the Special Provisions to protect program integrity and prevent adverse impacts on the crop insurance delivery system for Texas citrus fruit policies.
7. Section 11 (“Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss”)—FCIC proposes to revise section 11 by adding a new paragraph (a), designating the introductory paragraph as (b), and redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as (b)(1) and (b)(2) respectively. FCIC proposes the new paragraph (a) to clarify that, in accordance with section 14 of the Basic Provisions, the insured
FCIC proposes to revise the newly designated paragraph 11(b)(2) to clarify that if the insured intends to claim an indemnity on any unit, the insured must notify the Approved Insurance Provider at least 15 days prior to the beginning of harvest, or within 24 hours if damage is discovered during harvest, so the Approved Insurance Provider may have an opportunity to inspect the unit. This change provides a required timeframe for reporting damage and is consistent with revisions to other perennial crop policies, such as the Arizona-California Citrus Crop Insurance Provisions.
8. Section 12 (“Settlement of Claim”)—FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 12(b) by removing the phrase “crop, or variety if applicable” and inserting the phrase “combination of commodity type and intended use” in its place. FCIC proposes this change because “commodity type” listed in the actuarial documents will coincide with the current crop names and the price elections for each combination of commodity type and intended use will determine insurance elections for the unit.
FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 12(d) to clarify the provision applies only to citrus fruit insured with an intended use of juice. FCIC proposes this change to clarify the applicable citrus fruit type subcategory for applying this adjustment. Fresh and juice are currently type designations in the actuarial documents. However, for the 2018 crop year for citrus fruit groups insured under the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions, FCIC plans to expand the type category in the actuarial documents to include additional subcategories such as commodity type and intended use. Fresh and juice designations will be contained in the intended use category.
FCIC proposes to revise paragraph 12(e) by removing the fresh fruit terminology and replacing it with the intended use of fresh terminology. FCIC proposes this change because the fresh fruit option will be identified in the actuarial documents under the intended use category. The fresh fruit option will be elected by reporting the intended use of fresh. Therefore, to provide consistency with terms used in actuarial documents, FCIC proposes to remove the fresh fruit terminology and replace this terminology with intended use of fresh.
FCIC also proposes to revise paragraph 12(e) by revising the calculation for adjusting production to count for fruit insured as fresh that is not marketable as fresh due to insured causes of loss. The current provision states to use the local market price for the week before damage occurred, but does not specify procedures if a local market price is not available. FCIC publishes an annual bulletin that provides prices for settling claims because local market prices are not available for a portion of the year when processing plants are idle. FCIC proposes to revise the calculation to require the number of tons of damaged citrus to be multiplied by a Fresh Fruit Factor contained in the Special Provisions. The Fresh Fruit Factor will represent the ratio of the value of damaged fruit to the value of undamaged fresh fruit. The Fresh Fruit Factor will be determined using historical prices and other available data as applicable. This proposed change will provide consistency in the loss adjustment process, prevent delays in claims, and lessen the burden on the Approved Insurance Providers and FCIC.
Crop insurance, Texas citrus fruit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2018 and succeeding crop years as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Oranges;
(b) Grapefruit; and
(c) Any other citrus fruit designated as a “citrus fruit commodity” in the actuarial documents.
* * *
(b) Second stage production guarantee. The quantity of citrus (in tons) determined by multiplying the yield determined in accordance with section 3(e) of these Crop Provisions by the coverage level percentage you elect.
(a) Basic units will be established for each insured crop in accordance with section 1 of the Basic Provisions.
(c) Optional units may be established by either of the following, but not both:
(1) In accordance with section 34(c) of the Basic Provisions, except as provided in section 2(b) of these Crop Provisions; or
(2) Non-contiguous land.
In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:
(a) You may select only one price election and coverage level for each insured crop.
(1) The price election you choose for each insured crop need not bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each insured crop. For example, if you choose one hundred percent (100%) of the maximum price election for one insured crop (
(2) If separate price elections are available by commodity type or intended use within an insured crop, the price elections you choose within the insured crop must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each other commodity type or intended use within the insured crop. For example, if separate price elections are available for commodity type ruby red grapefruit with an intended use of fresh, and commodity type ruby red grapefruit with an intended use of juice, and you
(b) The production guarantee per acre is progressive by stage and increases from the first stage production guarantee to the second stage production guarantee. The stages are as follows:
(1) The first stage extends from the date insurance attaches through April 30 of the calendar year of normal bloom.
(2) The second stage extends from May 1 of the calendar year of normal bloom until the end of the insurance period.
(e) We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee, as necessary, based on our estimate of the effect of any circumstance that may reduce your yields from previous levels. Examples of these circumstances that may reduce yield may include, but are not necessarily limited to, interplanted agricultural commodities; tree removal, topping, hedging, or pruning of trees; damage; and change in practices. If the circumstance occurred:
(1) Before the beginning of the insurance period and you notify us by the production reporting date, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year regardless of whether the circumstance was due to an insured or uninsured cause of loss;
(2) After the beginning of the insurance period and you notify us by the production reporting date, the yield used to establish your production guarantee will be reduced for the current crop year only if the potential reduction in the yield used to establish your production guarantee is due to an uninsured cause of loss; or
(3) Before or after the beginning of the insurance period and you fail to notify us by the production reporting date, an amount equal to the reduction in the yield will be added to the production to count calculated in section 12(c) of these Crop Provisions due to uninsured causes. We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the subsequent crop year to reflect any reduction in the productive capacity of the trees or in the yield potential of the insured acreage.
(g) In lieu of the provisions in section 3 of the Basic Provisions that require reporting your production for the previous crop year, for each crop year you must report your production from two crop years ago (
(a) In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the insured crop will be each citrus fruit group you elect to insure and for which a premium rate is provided by the actuarial documents:
(b) For each insured crop, administrative fees will be assessed in accordance with section 6 of the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement and section 7 of the Basic Provisions.
In lieu of the provisions in section 9 of the Basic Provisions that prohibit insurance attaching to an insured crop interplanted with another agricultural commodity, interplanted acreage is uninsurable, except that a citrus fruit group interplanted with another perennial agricultural commodity is insurable unless we inspect the acreage and determine it does not meet the requirements contained in your policy.
(a) * * *
(9) Insects and plant disease, unless excluded or otherwise restricted through the Special Provisions, provided the loss of production is not due to damage resulting from insufficient or improper application of control measures as recommended by agricultural experts.
(b) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss of production due to the inability to market the citrus for any reason other than actual physical damage from an insurable cause of loss specified in this section. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person to accept production.
(a) In accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Basic Provisions, you must leave representative samples. In lieu of the requirements of section 14(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions, we will determine which trees must remain unharvested so that we may inspect them in accordance with FCIC procedures.
(b) * * *
(2) If you intend to claim an indemnity on any unit, you must notify us at least 15 days prior to the beginning of harvest, or within 24 hours if damage is discovered during harvest, so we may have an opportunity to inspect the unit. You must not sell or dispose of the damaged crop until after we have given you written consent to do so. If you fail to meet the requirements of this section, all such production will be considered undamaged and included as production to count.
(b) * * *
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage for each combination of commodity type and intended use by its respective production guarantee;
(e) Any citrus fruit insured with an intended use of fresh that is not marketable as fresh fruit due to insurable causes will be adjusted by multiplying the number of tons of such citrus fruit by the applicable Fresh Fruit Factor contained in the Special Provisions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-05-06, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2008-05-06 currently requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On February 20, 2008, we issued AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2008-05-06 requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord located at certain body stations, and repair if necessary. AD 2008-05-06 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. AD 2008-05-06 resulted from reports of cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We issued AD 2008-05-06 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.
Since we issued AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), Boeing issued Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012, which is an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for the actions required by AD 2008-05-06. We have determined that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012, inadvertently omitted installation of tapered fillers during the repair and preventive modification of certain longitudinal floor beam webs. Omission of the tapered fillers creates a preload condition that may promote undetected fatigue cracking and subsequent failure of the longitudinal floor beams at buttock line (BL) 24.82 and BL 45.57.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015. The service information describes procedures for various inspections for fatigue cracks in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord, located at the applicable body stations, repairs (including related investigative and corrective actions), and preventive modifications (including related investigative and corrective actions) that terminate the repetitive inspections. The service information also describes procedures for an inspection to determine if tapered fillers are installed, and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008). This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Since AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been redesignated in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
In addition, airplane groups identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, which is referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), do not, in all cases, match the airplane groups for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, which is the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the new actions specified in this proposed AD.
Also, operators of Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, must contact the FAA for actions instead of accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015. The procedures for inspections and corrective actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, do not apply to these airplanes (line numbers 1 through 291).
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 26, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by results from reports of cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), with revised service information and revised affected airplanes. For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, do the various inspections for fatigue cracks in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord, located at the applicable body stations specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do the inspections at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.
Note 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: The airplane groups identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, do not, in all cases, match the airplane groups identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015 (Group 4 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015 coincide with certain Group 2 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007).
(1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes, except for line numbers 1 through 291, identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007: Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, except where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008)). Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007.
(2) For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007: Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, except where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008)). Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), with revised service information that contains new repair actions. If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of the AD.
(1) For inspections done using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007: If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) For inspections done using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair, including doing all applicable related investigative actions and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Accomplishing a repair specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired area only.
For Groups 1 through 4, Configuration 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, do an inspection to determine if tapered fillers are installed; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: Accomplish inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.”
Accomplishing the applicable preventative modification specified in paragraph 3.B.4., ” Preventive Modification” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, terminates the applicable repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The preventative modification, including related investigative and corrective actions, must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved as specified in the fourth paragraph (related to AD 2008-05-06) of Section 1.F., Approval, of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012, for repairs and modifications are not approved for any provision of this AD. All other AMOCs approved for AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Trade Commission.
Request for public comments on proposed amendments.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) proposes revisions to its Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries (“Jewelry Guides” or “Guides”). The proposed revisions aim to respond to changes in the marketplace and help marketers avoid deceptive and unfair practices. This document summarizes the Commission's proposed revisions to the Guides and includes the proposed revised Guides.
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
Readers can find the Commission's complete analysis in the Statement of Basis and Purpose (“Statement”) on the FTC's Web site at
Reenah L. Kim, Attorney, (202) 326-2272, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
In July 2012, the Commission published a
Under Section 5 of the FTC Act,
Based on this framework, the Commission now proposes several amendments to the Guides. Specifically, the Commission proposes revisions in the following areas: (I) Surface application of precious metals; (II) products containing more than one precious metal; (III) alloys with precious metals in amounts below minimum thresholds; (IV) lead-glass-filled stones; (V) varietals; (VI) “cultured” diamonds; (VII) use of the term “gem”; and (VIII) treatments to pearl products.
The Commission proposes three revisions to its guidance on precious metal surface applications. First, based on the comments, to address the deceptive use of precious metal terms for silver and platinum products that are not composed throughout of the advertised metal, the Commission proposes to advise marketers against using silver or platinum terms to describe all, or part of, a coated product unless they adequately qualify the term to indicate the product has only a surface layer of the advertised precious metal.
Second, based on new durability testing, the Commission proposes to update the safe harbors for surface applications of gold.
Third, based on consumer perception evidence, the Commission proposes a new section advising marketers to disclose rhodium surface applications on products marked or described as precious metal, such as rhodium plated items marketed as “white gold” or silver.”
Consistent with consumer perception evidence, the Commission proposes adding a new section that states it is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the relative quantity of each precious metal in a product that contains more than one precious metal.
The Commission proposes to revise the Guides to address gold and silver products containing precious metal in amounts below the levels currently specified in the Guides. The current Guides advise marketers to avoid using the terms “gold,” “silver,” or “platinum,” or their abbreviations, to describe or mark a product unless it contains the precious metal in an amount that meets or exceeds the levels specified in Section 23.4 (gold), 23.6 (silver), and 23.7 (platinum group metals). The Commission proposes adding new guidance to the gold and silver sections regarding marketers who have competent and reliable scientific evidence that below-threshold products have materially similar properties (
The Commission proposes adding a new note to the section on “Misuse of the words `ruby,' `sapphire,' etc.”
The Commission proposes adding a new section that states it is unfair or deceptive to mark or describe a product with an incorrect varietal name.
Based on consumer perception evidence, the Commission proposes adding a new diamond example that states it is not unfair or deceptive to use the term “cultured” to describe laboratory-created diamonds if the term is immediately accompanied by “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic,” or by another word or phrase of like meaning.
Based on comments noting that the guidance on the term “gem” is circular and subjective, the Commission proposes eliminating Section 23.25 (“Misuse of the word `gem' ”). In its place, the Commission proposes adding the term “gem” to Section 23.23
Based on comments, the Commission proposes a new section addressing disclosures of treatments to pearls and cultured pearls. This section advises marketers to disclose treatments to such products if the treatment: (a) Is not permanent; (b) creates special care requirements or (c) has a significant effect on the product's value.
For further analysis of comments and the proposed revised guidance, please see the Statement of Basis and Purpose on the FTC's Web site, available at
Advertising, Jewelry, Labeling, Pewter, Precious metals, and Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and in the Statement of Basis and Purpose on the FTC's Web site, available at
15 U.S.C. 45, 46.
(a) These guides apply to jewelry industry products, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Gemstones and their laboratory-created and imitation substitutes; natural and cultured pearls and their imitations; and metallic watchbands not permanently attached to watches. These guides also apply to articles, including optical frames, pens and pencils, flatware, and hollowware, fabricated from precious metals (gold, silver and platinum group metals), precious metal alloys, and their imitations. These guides also apply to all articles made from pewter. For the purposes of these guides, all articles covered by these guides are defined as “industry products.”
(b) These guides apply to persons, partnerships, or corporations, at every level of the trade (including but not limited to manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers) engaged in the business of offering for sale, selling, or distributing industry products.
To prevent consumer deception, persons, partnerships, or corporations in the business of appraising, identifying, or grading industry products should utilize the terminology and standards set forth in the guides.
(c) These guides apply to claims and representations about industry products included in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, illustrations, depictions, product brand names, or through any other means.
(d) These guides set forth the Federal Trade Commission's current thinking about claims for jewelry and other articles made from precious metals and pewter. The guides help marketers and other industry members avoid making claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights on any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public. The Commission, however, may take action under the FTC Act if a marketer or other industry member makes a claim inconsistent with the guides. In any such enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the challenged act or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
(e) The guides consist of general principles, specific guidance on the use of particular claims for industry products, and examples. Claims may raise issues that are addressed by more than one example and in more than one section of the guides. The examples provide the Commission's views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain claims. Industry members may use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Whether a particular claim is deceptive will depend on the net impression of the advertisement, label, or other promotional material at issue. In addition, although many examples present specific claims and options for qualifying claims, the examples do not illustrate all permissible claims or qualifications under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the type, kind, grade, quality, quantity, metallic content, size, weight, cut, color, character, treatment, substance, durability, serviceability, origin, price, value, preparation, production, manufacture, distribution, or any other material aspect of an industry product.
If, in the sale or offering for sale of an industry product, any representation is made as to the grade assigned the product, the identity of the grading system used should be disclosed.
To prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures, such as those described in the guides, should be sufficiently clear and prominent. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.
An illustration or depiction of a diamond or other gemstone that portrays it in greater than its actual size may mislead consumers, unless a disclosure is made about the item's true size.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is handmade or hand-wrought unless the entire shaping and forming of such product from raw materials and its finishing and decoration were accomplished by hand labor and manually controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the construction, shape, design, and finish of each part of each individual product.
As used herein, “raw materials” include bulk sheet, strip, wire, precious metal clays, ingots, casting grain, and similar items that have not been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand forged, hand engraved, hand finished, or hand polished, or has been otherwise hand processed, unless the operation described was accomplished by hand labor and manually controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the type, amount, and effect of such operation on each part of each individual product.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the presence of gold or gold alloy in an industry product, or the quantity or karat fineness of gold or gold alloy contained in the product, or the karat fineness, thickness, weight ratio, or manner of application of any gold or gold alloy plating, covering, or coating on any surface of an industry product or part thereof.
(b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation, without qualification, to describe all or part of an industry product, which is not composed throughout of fine (24 karat) gold.
(2) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product composed throughout of an alloy of gold, unless a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy immediately precedes the word “Gold” or its abbreviation, and such fineness designation is of at least equal conspicuousness.
(3) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of gold or a gold alloy, but is surface-plated or coated with gold alloy, unless the word “Gold” or its abbreviation is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only surface-plated.
(4) Use of the term “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part contains a surface-plating of gold alloy, applied by any process, which is of such thickness and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability
(5) Use of the terms “Gold Filled,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Rolled Gold Plated,” “Gold Overlay,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part contains a surface plating of gold alloy applied by a mechanical process and of such thickness and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability is assured, and unless the term is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy that is of at least equal conspicuousness as the term used.
(6) Use of the terms “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” “Gold Filled,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Rolled Gold Plated,” “Gold Overlay,” or any abbreviation to describe a product in which the layer of gold plating has been covered with a base metal (such as nickel), which is covered with a thin wash of gold, unless there is a disclosure that the primary gold coating is covered with a base metal, which is gold washed.
(7) Use of the terms “Gold Electroplate,” “Gold Electroplated,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part is electroplated with gold or a gold alloy and such electroplating is of such karat fineness, thickness, and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability is assured.
(8) Use of any name, terminology, or other term to misrepresent that an industry product is equal or superior to, or different than, a known and established type of industry product with reference to its gold content or method of manufacture.
(9) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation, or of a quality mark implying gold content (
For an industry product that is not composed throughout of an alloy of gold of at least 10 karat fineness, using the word “gold” or any abbreviation, or a quality mark implying gold content (
(c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are consistent with the principles described above:
(1) An industry product or part thereof, composed throughout of an alloy of gold of not less than 10 karat fineness, may be marked and described as “Gold” when such word “Gold,” wherever appearing, is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy, and such karat designation is of equal conspicuousness as the word “Gold” (for example, “14 Karat Gold,” “14 K. Gold,” or “14 Kt. Gold”). Such product may also be marked and described by a designation of the karat fineness of the gold alloy unaccompanied by the word “Gold” (for example, “14 Karat,” “14Kt.,” or “14 K.”).
Use of the term “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of a product that is composed throughout of gold alloy, but contains a hollow center or interior, may mislead consumers, unless the fact that the product contains a hollow center is disclosed in immediate proximity to the term “Gold” or its abbreviation (for example, “14 Karat Gold-Hollow Center,” or “14 K. Gold Tubing,” when of a gold alloy tubing of such karat fineness). Such products should not be marked or described as “solid” or as being solidly of gold or of a gold alloy. For example, when the composition of such a product is 14 karat gold alloy, it should not be described or marked as either “14 Kt. Solid Gold” or as “Solid 14 Kt. Gold.”
(2) An industry product or part thereof on which there has been affixed on all significant surfaces by soldering, brazing, welding, or other mechanical means, a plating of gold alloy of not less than 10 karat fineness and of a minimum thickness throughout of gold or gold alloy that is 170 millionths of an inch (approximately 4.3 microns) may be marked or described as “Gold Filled,” “Gold Overlay,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” or an adequate abbreviation, when such plating constitutes at least 1/20th of the weight of the metal in the entire article and when the term is immediately preceded by a designation of the karat fineness of the plating which is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (for example, “14 Karat Gold Filled,” “14 Kt. Gold Filled,” “14 Kt. G.F.,” “14 Kt. Gold Overlay,” or “14K. R.G.P.”). The exact thickness of the plate may be marked on the item, if it is immediately followed by a designation of the karat fineness of the plating, which is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (as, for example, “4.3 microns 12 K gold overlay” or “4.3 μ 14 Kt. G.F.” for items plated with 4.3 microns of 12 karat and 14 karat gold, respectively).
If an industry product has a thicker coating of gold or gold alloy on some areas than others, the minimum thickness of the plate should be marked. When conforming to all such requirements except the specified minimum of 1/20th of the weight of the metal in the entire article, the terms “Gold Overlay,” “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” and “Rolled Gold Plate” may be used when the karat fineness designation is immediately preceded by a fraction accurately disclosing the portion of the weight of the metal in the entire article accounted for by the plating, and when such fraction is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (for example, “1/40th 12 Kt. Rolled Gold Plate” or “1/40 12 Kt. R.G.P.”).
(3) An industry product or part thereof on which there has been affixed on all significant surfaces by an electrolytic process an electroplating of gold or gold alloy of not less than 22 karats that is 15 millionths of an inch (approximately 0.381 microns) may be marked or described as “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” “Gold Electroplate” or “Gold Electroplated,” or abbreviated, as, for example, “G.E.P.” When the electroplating meets the minimum fineness but not the minimum thickness specified above, the marking or description may be “Gold Flashed” or “Gold Washed.” An industry product or part thereof on which there has been affixed on all significant surfaces by an electrolytic process an electroplating of gold or gold alloy of not less than 22 karats that is 100 millionths of an inch (approximately 2.54 microns) may be marked or described as “Heavy Gold Electroplate” or “Heavy Gold Electroplated.” When electroplatings qualify for the term “Gold Electroplate” (or “Gold Electroplated”), or the term “Heavy Gold Electroplate” (or “Heavy Gold Electroplated”), and have been applied by use of a particular kind of electrolytic process, the marking may be accompanied by identification of the process used, as for example, “Gold Electroplated (X Process)” or “Heavy Gold Electroplated (Y Process).” The exact thickness of the plate may be marked on the item, if it is immediately followed by a designation of the karat fineness of the plating, which is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (as, for example, “0.381 microns 22 K gold electroplate” for an item plated with 0.381 microns of 22 karat gold or “2.54
If an industry product has a thicker electroplating of gold or gold alloy on some areas than others, the minimum thickness of the plate should be marked.
(d) The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.
Exemptions recognized in the assay of karat gold industry products and in the assay of gold filled, gold overlay, and rolled gold plate industry products, and not to be considered in any assay for quality, are listed in the appendix.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that an industry product is “vermeil” if such mark or description misrepresents the product's true composition.
(b) An industry product may be described or marked as “vermeil” if it consists of a base of sterling silver coated or plated on all significant surfaces with gold or gold alloy of not less than 22 karat fineness and a minimum thickness throughout of 100 millionths of an inch (approximately 2.54 microns).
It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “vermeil” to describe a product in which the sterling silver has been covered with a base metal (such as nickel) plated with gold unless there is a disclosure that the sterling silver is covered with a base metal that is plated with gold.
Exemptions recognized in the assay of gold filled, gold overlay, and rolled gold plate industry products are listed in the appendix.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent that an industry product contains silver, or to misrepresent a product's silver content, plating, electroplating, or coating.
(b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the words “silver,” “solid silver,” “Sterling Silver,” “Sterling,” or the abbreviation “Ster.” to describe all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver.
(2) Use of the words “coin” or “coin silver” to describe all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver.
A marketer may mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part an industry product as silver even when it is not at least 925/1,000ths pure silver if the marketer has competent and reliable scientific evidence that such product does not differ materially from a product that is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver with respect to the following attributes or properties: Corrosion resistance, tarnish resistance, and any other attribute or property material to consumers. In those circumstances, a correct designation of the purity of the alloy should immediately precede the word “silver” or its abbreviation, and such designation should be of at least equal conspicuousness. If the marketer lacks such evidence, in addition to disclosing the purity of the alloy, it should also disclose that the product may not have the same attributes or properties as products that contain at least 925/1,000ths. The terms “solid silver,” “sterling silver,” “sterling,” and the abbreviation “Ster.” should not be used to mark or describe such products that are not at least 925/1,000ths pure silver. Consistent with § 23.6(b)(2), marketers may use the terms “coin” or “coin silver” only if the product is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver.
(3) Use of the word “silver” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of a product that is not composed throughout of silver, but has a surface layer or coating of silver, unless the word “silver” or its abbreviation is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only coated.
(4) Marking, describing, or otherwise representing all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with silver unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of silver that is of reasonable durability.
(c) The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.
The National Stamping Act provides that silver-plated articles shall not “be stamped, branded, engraved or imprinted with the word `sterling' or the word `coin,' either alone or in conjunction with other words or marks.” 15 U.S.C. 297(a).
Exemptions recognized in the assay of silver industry products are listed in the appendix.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” and “osmium,” or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an industry product if such marking or description misrepresents the product's true composition. The Platinum Group Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and Osmium.
(b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of a product that is not composed throughout of platinum, but has a surface layer or coating of platinum, unless the word “Platinum” or its abbreviation is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only coated.
(2) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation, without qualification, to describe all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum.
(3) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation accompanied by a number indicating the parts per thousand of pure Platinum contained in the product without mention of the number of parts per thousand of other PGM contained in the product, to describe all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of at least 850 parts per thousand pure platinum, for example, “600Plat.”
(4) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation thereof, to mark or describe any product that is not composed throughout of at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum.
(5) Use of the word “Platinum,” or any abbreviation accompanied by a number or percentage indicating the parts per thousand of pure Platinum contained in the product, to describe all or part of an industry product that contains at least 500 parts per thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and does not contain at least 950 parts per thousand PGM (for example, “585 Plat.”) without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, immediately following the name or description of such product:
(i) Of the full composition of the product (by name and not abbreviation) and percentage of each metal; and
(ii) That the product may not have the same attributes or properties as traditional platinum products. Provided, however, that the marketer need not make disclosure under § 23.7(b)(5)(ii), if the marketer has competent and reliable scientific evidence that such product does not differ materially from a product containing at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum with respect to the following attributes or properties: Durability, luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, hypo-allergenicity, ability to be resized or repaired, retention of precious metal over time, and any other attribute or property material to consumers.
When using percentages to qualify platinum representations, marketers should convert the amount in parts per thousand to a percentage that is accurate to the first decimal place (
(c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:
(1) The following abbreviations for each of the PGM may be used for quality marks on articles: “Plat.” or “Pt.” for Platinum; “Irid.” or “Ir.” for Iridium; “Pall.” or “Pd.” for Palladium; “Ruth.” or “Ru.” for Ruthenium; “Rhod.” or “Rh.” for Rhodium; and “Osmi.” or “Os.” for Osmium.
(2) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked or described as “Platinum.”
(3) An industry product consisting of 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum, 900 parts per thousand pure Platinum, or 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked “Platinum,” provided that the Platinum marking is preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of pure Platinum (for industry products consisting of 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum, the marking described in § 23.7(b) (2) above is also appropriate). Thus, the following markings may be used: “950Pt.,” “950Plat.,” “900Pt.,” “900Plat.,” “850Pt.,” or “850Plat.”
(4) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, and of at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum, may be marked “Platinum,” provided that the mark of each PGM constituent is preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of each PGM, as for example, “600Pt.350Ir.,” “600Plat.350Irid.,” “550Pt.350Pd.50Ir.,” or “550Plat.350Pall.50Irid.”
(5) An industry product consisting of at least 500 parts per thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and not consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, may be marked accurately, with a quality marking on the article, using parts per thousand and standard chemical abbreviations (
Exemptions recognized in the assay of platinum industry products are listed in appendix A of this part.
It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose a surface-layer application of rhodium on products marked or described as precious metal.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the relative quantity of each precious metal in a product that contains more than than one precious metal. Marketers should list precious metals in the order of their relative weight in the product from greatest to least (
(b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the terms “Platinum + Silver” to describe a product that contains more silver than platinum by weight.
(2) Use of the terms “14K/Sterling” to describe a product that contains more silver than gold by weight.
(c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:
(1) For a product comprised primarily of silver with a surface-layer application of platinum, “900 platinum over silver.”
(2) For a product comprised primarily of silver with visually distinguishable parts of gold, “14k gold-accented silver.”
(3) For a product comprised primarily of gold with visually distinguishable parts of platinum, “850 Platinum inset, 14K gold ring.”
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as “Pewter” or any abbreviation if such mark or description misrepresents the product's true composition.
(b) An industry product or part thereof may be described or marked as “Pewter” or any abbreviation if it consists of at least 900 parts per 1000 Grade A Tin, with the remainder composed of metals appropriate for use in pewter.
As used in these guides, the term
(a) Deception as to applicability of marks.
(1) If a quality mark on an industry product is applicable to only part of the product, the part of the product to which it is applicable (or inapplicable) should be disclosed when, absent such disclosure, the location of the mark misrepresents the product or part's true composition.
(2) If a quality mark is applicable to only part of an industry product, but not another part, which is of similar surface appearance, each quality mark should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or parts to which the mark is applicable.
(b) Deception by reason of difference in the size of letters or words in a marking or markings. It is unfair or deceptive to place a quality mark on a product in which the words or letters appear in greater size than other words or letters of the mark, or when different markings placed on the product have different applications and are in different sizes, when the net impression of any such marking would be misleading as to the metallic composition of all or part of the product. (An example of improper marking would be the marking of a gold electroplated product with the word “electroplate” in small type and the word “gold” in larger type, with the result that purchasers and prospective
Legibility of markings. If a quality mark is engraved or stamped on an industry product, or is printed on a tag or label attached to the product, the quality mark should be of sufficient size type as to be legible to persons of normal vision, should be so placed as likely to be observed by purchasers, and should be so attached as to remain thereon until consumer purchase.
Disclosure of identity of manufacturers, processors, or distributors. The National Stamping Act provides that any person, firm, corporation, or association, being a manufacturer or dealer subject to section 294 of the Act, who applies or causes to be applied a quality mark, or imports any article bearing a quality mark “which indicates or purports to indicate that such article is made in whole or in part of gold or silver or of an alloy of either metal” shall apply to the article the trademark or name of such person. 15 U.S.C. 297.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to:
(1) Use the terms “corrosion proof,” “noncorrosive,” “rust proof,” or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product will be immune from rust and other forms of corrosion during the life expectancy of the product; or
(2) Use the terms “corrosion resistant,” “rust resistant,” or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product are of such composition as to not be subject to material damage by corrosion or rust during the major portion of the life expectancy of the product under normal conditions of use.
(b) Among the metals that may be considered as corrosion (and rust) resistant are: Pure nickel; Gold alloys of not less than 10 Kt. fineness; and Austenitic stainless steels.
(a) A diamond is a natural mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; and it has a refractive index of 2.42.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified word “diamond” to describe or identify any object or product not meeting the requirements specified in the definition of diamond provided above, or which, though meeting such requirements, has not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets.
It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that industrial grade diamonds or other non-jewelry quality diamonds are of jewelry quality.
(c) The following are examples of descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:
(1) The use of the words “rough diamond” to describe or designate uncut or unfaceted objects or products satisfying the definition of diamond provided above; or
(2) The use of the word “diamond” to describe or designate objects or products satisfying the definition of diamond but which have not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets when in immediate conjunction with the word “diamond” there is either a disclosure of the number of facets and shape of the diamond or the name of a type of diamond that denotes shape and that usually has less than seventeen (17) facets (
(3) The use of the word “cultured” to describe laboratory-created diamonds if the term is immediately accompanied, with equal conspicuousness, by the words “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to clearly disclose that it is a laboratory-created product.
Additional guidance about imitation and laboratory-created diamond representations and misuse of words “gem,” “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” etc., are set forth in §§ 23.24 and 23.25.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless” to describe any diamond that discloses flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots, clouds, internal lasering, or other blemishes or imperfections of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in diamond grading.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “perfect,” or any representation of similar meaning, to describe any diamond unless the diamond meets the definition of “flawless” and is not of inferior color or make.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words “flawless” or “perfect” to describe a ring or other article of jewelry having a “flawless” or “perfect” principal diamond or diamonds, and supplementary stones that are not of such quality, unless there is a disclosure that the description applies only to the principal diamond or diamonds.
A diamond is a gemstone product. Treatments to diamonds should be disclosed in the manner prescribed in § 23.24 of these guides, Disclosure of treatments to gemstones.
It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “blue white” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that under normal, north daylight or its equivalent shows any color or any trace of any color other than blue or bluish.
It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “properly cut,” “proper cut,” “modern cut,” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that is lopsided, or is so thick or so thin in depth as to detract materially from the brilliance of the stone.
Stones that are commonly called “fisheye” or “old mine” should not be described as “properly cut,” “modern cut,” etc.
It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified expressions “brilliant,” “brilliant cut,” or “full cut” to describe, identify, or refer to any diamond except a round diamond that has at least thirty-two (32) facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four (24) facets below.
Such terms should not be applied to single or rose-cut diamonds. They may be applied to emerald-(rectangular) cut, pear-shaped, heart-shaped, oval-shaped, and marquise-(pointed oval) cut diamonds meeting the above-stated facet requirements when, in immediate conjunction with the term used, the form of the diamond is disclosed.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the weight of a diamond.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “point” or any abbreviation in any representation, advertising, marking, or labeling to describe the weight of a diamond, unless the weight is also stated as decimal parts of a carat (
A carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (
(c) If diamond weight is stated as decimal parts of a carat (
(d) If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, a conspicuous disclosure of the fact that the diamond weight is not exact should be made in close proximity to the fractional representation and a disclosure of a reasonable range of weight for each fraction (or the weight tolerance being used) should also be made.
When fractional representations of diamond weight are made, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, in catalogs or other printed materials, the disclosure of the fact that the actual diamond weight is within a specified range should be made conspicuously on every page where a fractional representation is made. Such disclosure may refer to a chart or other detailed explanation of the actual ranges used. For example, “Diamond weights are not exact; see chart on p.X for ranges.”
As used in these guides, the terms set forth below have the following meanings:
(a) Pearl: A calcareous concretion consisting essentially of alternating concentric layers of carbonate of lime and organic material formed within the body of certain mollusks, the result of an abnormal secretory process caused by an irritation of the mantle of the mollusk following the intrusion of some foreign body inside the shell of the mollusk, or due to some abnormal physiological condition in the mollusk, neither of which has in any way been caused or induced by humans.
(b) Cultured pearl: The composite product created when a nucleus (usually a sphere of calcareous mollusk shell) planted by humans inside the shell or in the mantle of a mollusk is coated with nacre by the mollusk.
(c) Imitation pearl: A manufactured product composed of any material or materials that simulate in appearance a pearl or cultured pearl.
(d) Seed pearl: A small pearl, as defined in (a), that measures approximately two millimeters or less.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified word “pearl” or any other word or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any object or product that is not in fact a pearl, as defined in § 23.19(a).
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “pearl” to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “cultured” or “cultivated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “pearl” to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.
(d) It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “faux pearl,” “fashion pearl,” “Mother of Pearl,” or any other such term to describe or qualify an imitation pearl product unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “cultured pearl,” “cultivated pearl,” or any other word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any imitation pearl.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “seed pearl” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured or an imitation pearl, without using the appropriate qualifying term “cultured” (
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “Oriental pearl” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any industry product other than a pearl taken from a salt water mollusk and of the distinctive appearance and type of pearls obtained from mollusks inhabiting the Persian Gulf and recognized in the jewelry trade as Oriental pearls.
(d) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “Oriental” to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured or imitation pearl.
(e) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “natura,” “natural,” “nature's,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured or imitation pearl. It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “organic” to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl, unless the term is qualified in such a way as to make clear that the product is not a natural or cultured pearl.
(f) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “kultured,” “semi-cultured pearl,” “cultured-like,” “part-cultured,” “premature cultured pearl,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl.
(g) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “South Sea pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to a pearl that is taken from a salt water mollusk of the Pacific Ocean South Sea Islands, Australia, or Southeast Asia. It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “South Sea cultured pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to a cultured pearl formed in a salt water mollusk of the Pacific Ocean South Sea Islands, Australia, or Southeast Asia.
(h) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “Biwa cultured pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to cultured pearls grown in fresh water mollusks in the lakes and rivers of Japan.
(i) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “precious,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any imitation pearl.
(j) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “synthetic” or similar terms to describe cultured or imitation pearls.
(k) It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “Japanese Pearls,” “Chinese Pearls,” “Mallorca Pearls,” or any regional designation to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured or imitation pearl, unless the term is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “cultured,” “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is a cultured or imitation pearl.
It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the manner in which cultured pearls are produced, the size of the nucleus artificially inserted in the mollusk and included in cultured pearls, the length of time that such products remained in the mollusk, the thickness of the nacre coating, the value and quality of cultured pearls as compared with the value and quality of pearls and imitation pearls, or any other material matter relating to the formation, structure, properties, characteristics, and qualities of cultured pearls.
It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a pearl or cultured pearl has been treated if:
(a) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;
(b) The treatment creates special care requirements for the pearl or cultured pearl. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser;
(c) The treatment has a significant effect on the product's value. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated.
The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these Guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale, except that where a product can be purchased without personally viewing the product (
It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated if:
(a) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;
(b) The treatment creates special care requirements for the gemstone. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser;
(c) The treatment has a significant effect on the stone's value. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated.
The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these Guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale; except that where a product can be purchased without personally viewing the product (
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a natural stone of the type described.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word “stone,” “birthstone,” “gem,” “gemstone,” or similar term to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, [manufacturer name]-created, synthetic, imitation, or simulated stone, unless such word or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic,” or by the word “imitation” or “simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a natural gemstone.
The use of the word “faux” to describe a laboratory-created or imitation stone is not an adequate disclosure that the stone is not natural.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory- created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or “synthetic” with the name of any natural stone to describe any industry product unless such industry product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named.
It would be unfair or deceptive to describe products filled with a substantial quantity of lead glass in the following way:
(1) With the unqualified word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or name of any other precious or semi-precious stone;
(2) As a “treated ruby” or other “treated” precious or semi-precious stone;
(3) As a “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or “synthetic” “ruby” or other natural stone;
(4) As a “composite ruby” or other “composite” precious or semi-precious stone without qualification;
(5) As a “hybrid ruby” or other “hybrid” precious or semi-precious stone without qualification; or
(6) As a “manufactured ruby” or other “manufactured” precious or semi-precious stone without qualification.
The following are examples of descriptions for such products that are not considered deceptive:
(1) use of the terms “lead-glass filled corundum” or “lead-glass filled composite corundum” to describe a product made with low-grade corundum (not ruby) that is infused with lead glass;
(2) use of the terms “lead-glass-filled ruby” or “lead-glass-filled composite ruby” to describe a product made with ruby that is infused with lead glass.
It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” “semi-precious,” or similar terms to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to mark or describe an industry product with the incorrect varietal name.
(b) The following are examples of marking or descriptions that may be misleading:
(1) Use of the term “yellow emerald” to describe golden beryl or heliodor.
(2) Use of the term “green amethyst” to describe prasiolite.
A varietal name is given for a division of gem species or genus based on a color, type of optical phenomenon, or other distinguishing characteristic of appearance.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless” as a quality description of any gemstone that discloses blemishes, inclusions, or clarity faults of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in gemstone grading.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “perfect” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any gemstone unless the gemstone meets the definition of “flawless” and is not of inferior color or make.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless,” “perfect,” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any imitation gemstone.
(a) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a karat gold industry product include springs, posts, and separable backs of lapel buttons, posts and nuts for attaching interchangeable ornaments, metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering, field pieces and bezels for lockets,
Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a karat gold optical product include: the hinge assembly (barrel or other special types such as are customarily used in plastic frames); washers, bushings, and nuts of screw assemblies; dowels; springs for spring shoe straps; metal parts permanently encased in a non-metallic covering; and for oxfords,
(b) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a gold filled, gold overlay and rolled gold plate industry product, other than watchcases, include joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., field pieces and bezels for lockets, posts and separate backs of lapel buttons, bracelet and necklace snap tongues, springs, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.
Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a gold filled, gold overlay and rolled gold plate optical product include: screws; the hinge assembly (barrel or other special types such as are customarily used in plastic frames); washers, bushings, tubes and nuts of screw assemblies; dowels; pad inserts; springs for spring shoe straps, cores and/or inner windings of comfort cable temples; metal parts permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering; and for oxfords, the handle and catch.
(c) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a silver industry product include screws, rivets, springs, spring pins for wrist watch straps; posts and separable backs of lapel buttons; wire pegs, posts, and nuts used for applying mountings or other ornaments, which mountings or ornaments shall be of the quality marked; pin stems (
(d) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of an industry product of silver in combination with gold include joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., posts and separable backs of lapel buttons, springs, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.
(e) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a platinum industry product include springs, winding bars, sleeves, crown cores, mechanical joint pins, screws, rivets, dust bands, detachable movement rims, hat pin stems, and bracelet and necklace snap tongues. In addition, the following exemptions are recognized for products marked in accordance with § 23.6(b)(5) of these Guides (
By direction of the Commission.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to amend existing Commission regulations to establish an alternative to fingerprinting to evaluate the fitness of natural persons who are required to submit fingerprints under the Commission's regulations and who have not resided in the United States since reaching 18 years of age (“Proposal”).
Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE16, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Katherine Driscoll, Associate Chief Counsel, 202-418-5544,
Subject to certain exceptions and exclusions, persons engaging in specified activities involving commodity interests
Pursuant to Commission regulation 3.60, the Commission may, subject to some limitations, deny, grant with conditions, suspend, revoke, or restrict registration to an applicant if the Commission alleges and is prepared to prove that the registrant or applicant is subject to one or more of the statutory disqualifications set forth in section 8a(2), 8a(3) or 8a(4) of the Act. 17 CFR 3.60. Sections 8a(2) and 8a(3) of the Act contain an extensive list of matters that provide grounds for refusing or conditioning an applicant's registration, including, without limitation, felony convictions, commodities or securities law violations, bars or other adverse actions taken by financial regulators, and willfully omitting to state any material fact in an application.
Pursuant to the registration process for determining a registrant's fitness in part 3 of the Commission's regulations, natural persons
The Commission has delegated to National Futures Association (“NFA”), a registered futures association under Section 17 of the CEA, the registration functions set forth in subparts A, B, and C of part 3 of the Commission's regulations, including the collection and review of a completed Form 8-R
In December 2012, the Commission's Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”), in response to concerns raised by industry participants that the Fingerprinting Requirement was unduly burdensome to foreign natural persons and after considering those concerns in light of the continued need to evaluate the fitness of those persons, issued a no-action letter, CFTC Staff Letter No. 12-49.
To rely on the relief provided in CFTC Staff Letter No. 12-49, DSIO staff required that any such firm submit, for each principal,
After issuing CFTC Staff Letter No. 12-49, DSIO staff issued similar no-action relief from the Fingerprinting Requirement for associated persons of FCMs, RFEDs, IBs, CTAs, CPOs, and LTMs that have not resided in the United States since reaching 18 years of age in CFTC Staff Letter No. 13-29
The Commission is proposing to amend the Fingerprinting Requirement by adding a new sub-section (e) to the existing list of exemptions from the Fingerprinting Requirement in § 3.21
This Proposal differs from the DSIO No-Action Relief. First, this Proposal would extend the relief to certain natural persons connected to FBs and FTs. Second, the Proposal would include all requirements to provide a fingerprint card under Part 3 of the Commission's regulations, whereas the DSIO No-Action Relief is more limited.
Proposed sub-section (e)(2) of § 3.21 would provide that the obligation to provide a fingerprint card for a Foreign Natural Person under part 3 of the Commission's regulations would be deemed satisfied for a Certifying Firm (each, as defined below) if: (a) Such Certifying Firm causes a criminal history background check of such Foreign Natural Person to be performed; (b) such criminal history background check does not reveal any matters that constitute a disqualification under Sections 8a(2) or 8a(3) of the CEA,
The certification must: (i) State that the conditions described above have been satisfied; and (ii) be signed by a person authorized by such Certifying Firm to make such certification. In addition, each criminal history background check must: (a) Be of a type that would reveal all matters listed under Sections 8a(2)(D) or 8a(3)(D), (E), or (H) of the CEA
In terms of definitions, proposed paragraph 3.21(e)(1)(i) would define Foreign Natural Person, solely for purposes of paragraph (e), as any natural person who has not resided in the United States since reaching the age of 18 years. Also, proposed paragraph 3.21(e)(1)(ii) would define Certifying Firm, also solely for purposes of paragraph (e), with respect to natural persons acting in certain specified capacities in relation to the firm.
By way of recordkeeping, proposed paragraph 3.21(e)(3) would require that the Certifying Firm maintain, in accordance with Commission regulation 1.31, records documenting each criminal history background check and the results thereof.
The Commission believes the proposal, in providing certainly to market participants by way of Commission regulation, will make the commodity interest markets it oversees more liquid, competitive, and accessible by enabling Foreign Natural Persons to demonstrate that they meet the minimum standards for fitness and competency without undue burden. The alternative to fingerprinting proposed will remove an impediment to participation in United States' markets by persons located outside of the United States while also ensuring the continued protection of market participants and the public. Further, the Commission believes that, by providing an alternative for persons outside the United States, this Proposal is consistent with the principles of international comity.
As discussed above, in an attempt to provide greater clarity to market participants, this Proposal is slightly different than the DSIO No-Action Letters. In particular, where the No-Action Relief required that “a
If adopted, the proposed rule would supersede the DSIO No-Action Letters without prejudice to those who are relying on either of the DSIO No-Action Letters and have satisfied the requirements thereof prior to the date hereof.
The Commission requests comment generally on all aspects of this Proposal. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the following:
1. Should the Commission promulgate a final rule in relation to this Proposal to provide an alternative to the Fingerprinting Requirement for Foreign Natural Persons?
2. Please describe the burdens that Foreign Natural Persons face in complying with the Fingerprinting Requirement. How are these burdens different from those faced by natural persons that are not Foreign Natural Persons?
3. Is the criminal history background check as set forth in the Proposal sufficient to reveal the existence of all matters listed under Sections 8a(2)(D) or 8a(3)(D), (E), or (H) of the CEA, if any such matter existed? If not, please provide specific additional or alternative requirements for the criminal history background check.
4. This Proposal is limited to Foreign Natural Persons (
5. This Proposal requires that a background check be completed not more than one calendar year prior to the date of a Certifying Firm's related certification. Should the Commission require that the background check be completed within a different period?
6. Are persons eligible for the DSIO No-Action Relief currently availing themselves of that alternative to the Fingerprinting Requirement? To the extent that such persons are not, please provide reasons as to why they are not.
7. Are there any other matters that the Commission should consider in determining whether to adopt this Proposal?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
This Proposal contains collections of information for which the Commission has previously received control numbers from OMB. The titles for these collections of information are “Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: Amendments to Compliance Obligations, OMB control number 3038-0023”
The responses to these collections of information are mandatory. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number issued by OMB.
The collection of information in this Proposal would provide an optional alternative to complying with the Fingerprinting Requirement (as described above). Eligible persons would have the option to elect the certification process, but no obligation to do so. For this reason, except to the extent that the Commission is amending the subject OMB control numbers for PRA purposes to reflect the alternative certification process, this Proposal is not expected to impose any new burdens on market participants. Rather, to the extent that this Proposal provides an alternative means to comply with the Fingerprinting Requirement and is elected by market participants, it is reasonable for the Commission to infer that the alternative is less burdensome to such participants.
Collections 3038-0023 and 3038-0072 are currently in force with their control numbers having been provided by OMB.
As discussed above, this Proposal would add a new exemption that would incorporate an alternative to fingerprinting to evaluate the fitness of certain Foreign Natural Persons. In order to qualify for this alternative, the Certifying Firm must take the steps required pursuant to this Proposal, including submitting the required certification to NFA and maintaining records of the criminal history background check and the results thereof. Requiring such actions would result in revisions to collections 3038-0023 and 3038-0072. Therefore, the Commission proposes to revise each of collections 3038-0023 and 3038-0072.
The Commission understands that NFA has received approximately 110 requests in each of 2014 and 2015 from market participants asking to avail themselves of the DSIO No-Action Relief. However, as discussed above, the relief provided by this Proposal is broader than the DSIO No-Action relief in that it extends the relief to certain natural persons connected to FBs and FTs. Therefore, the Commission estimates that Certifying Firms will submit 200 certifications per year to take advantage of the alternative provided in this Proposal.
As of November 23, 2015, there were (i) 9,259 Commission-registered FCMs, RFEDs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs, LTMs, FBs, and FTs and (ii) 103 Commission-registered SDs and MSPs, making an aggregate total of 9,362 registrants.
Collection 3038-0023 relates to collections of information from FCMs, RFEDs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs, LTMs, FBs, and FTs. Based on the above, the estimated additional hour burden for collection 3038-0023 of 495 hours is calculated as follows:
Collection 3038-0072 relates to collections of information from SDs and MSPs. Based on the above, the estimated additional hour burden for collection 3038-0072 of 5 hours is calculated as follows:
The Commission invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the proposed information collection requirements discussed above. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, by fax at (202) 395-6566, or by email at
Section 15(a) of the Act
Because this Proposal will solely provide an optional alternative to complying with the Fingerprinting Requirement, which alternative no FCM, RFED, IB, CPO, CTA, SD, MSP, LTM, FB, FT, associated person, or other Foreign Natural Person is required to elect, the Commission believes that this Proposal will not impose any costs on such persons.
Because the amendment to Commission regulation will allow FCMs, RFEDs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs, SDs, MSPs, LTMs, FBs, and FTs to submit, subject to the terms and conditions herein, a certification in lieu of a fingerprint card for Foreign Natural Persons, NFA will need to develop a process to review and retain such certifications and consider amending its applications and/or other forms to reflect the availability of this exception from the Fingerprinting Requirement. The Commission expects that the costs of such activities will not be significant.
The Commission believes that, by establishing an alternative method for evaluating the fitness of Foreign Natural Persons for whom a fingerprint card must currently be submitted, this Proposal would help keep the United States' commodity interest markets accessible and competitive with other markets around the world by removing an impediment to participation in United States' markets by persons located outside of the United States while also ensuring the continued protection of market participants and the public. Further, the Commission believes that, by providing an alternative for persons outside the United States, this Proposal is consistent with the principles of international comity.
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders. CEA Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (i) Protection of market participants and the public; (ii) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (iii) price discovery; (iv) sound risk management practices; and (v) other public interest considerations.
This Proposal will continue to protect the public by ensuring that persons who are currently subject to the Fingerprinting Requirement, whether or not they reside in the United States, must have their fitness reviewed through the completion of a background check.
This Proposal may increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the markets by encouraging more participation in United States markets by persons located outside of the United States. The Commission does not believe that the integrity of financial
The Commission generally believes that providing an alternative means of ensuring the fitness of a person who resides outside the United States for purposes of Commission registration, by reducing the burden that the Fingerprinting Requirement could impose on such persons, could reduce impediments to transact on a cross-border basis.
As explained above, one of the critically important functions of registration is to allow the Commission to ensure that all futures and swaps industry professionals who deal with the public meet minimum standards of fitness and competency.
The Commission believes that, by providing an alternative for persons outside the United States, this Proposal is consistent with the principles of international comity.
The Commission invites public comment on its cost-benefit considerations, including the Section 15(a) factors described above. Commenters are also invited to submit any data or other information that they may have quantifying or qualifying the costs and benefits of this Proposal with their comment letters.
Associated persons, Brokers, Commodity futures, Commodity pool operators, Commodity trading advisors, Customer protection, Fingerprinting, Foreign exchange, Futures commission merchants, Introducing brokers, Leverage transaction merchants, Leverage transactions, Major swap participants, Principals, Registration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retail foreign exchange dealers, Swap dealers, Swaps.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend part 3 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6s, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, 23.
(e)
(i) The term
(ii) The term
(A) For any natural person that is a principal or associated person of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, leverage transaction merchant, floor broker, or floor trader, such futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, leverage transaction merchant, floor broker, or floor trader; and
(B) For any natural person that is responsible for, or directs, the entry of orders from a floor broker's or floor trader's own account, such floor broker or floor trader.
(2) Any obligation in this part to provide a fingerprint card for a foreign natural person shall be deemed satisfied with respect to a certifying firm if:
(i) Such certifying firm causes a criminal history background check of such foreign natural person to be performed; and
(ii) The criminal history background check:
(A) Is of a type that would reveal all matters listed under Sections 8a(2)(D) or 8a(3)(D), (E), or (H) of the Act relating to such foreign natural person;
(B) Does not reveal any matters that constitute a disqualification under Sections 8a(2) or 8a(3) of the Act, other than those disclosed to the National Futures Association; and
(C) Is completed not more than one calendar year prior to the date that such certifying firm submits the certification described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section;
(iii) A person authorized by such certifying firm submits, in reliance on such criminal history background check, a certification by such certifying firm to the National Futures Association, that:
(A) States that the conditions of paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section have been satisfied; and
(B) Is signed by a person authorized by such certifying firm to make such certification.
(3) The certifying firm shall maintain, in accordance with § 1.31 of this chapter, records documenting that the criminal history background check performed pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section was completed and the results thereof.
On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the holdings of
The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Friday, January 15, 2016.
The public hearing is being held in the Chief Counsel NYU conference room 2615, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148998-13), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148998-13), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Mark Shurtliff at (202) 317-3400; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-148998-13) that was published in the
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Petition; reasons for Agency response.
This document announces the availability of EPA's response to a petition it received under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA section 21 petition was received from the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) on October 7, 2015. The petitioner requested EPA to promulgate a rule pursuant to TSCA section 8 that would “establish a process to amend the list of natural sources of oil and fat in the `Soap and Detergent Association' (SDA) nomenclature system by considering the chemical equivalency of additional natural sources.” After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.
EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed December 31, 2015.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may manufacture or import biobased chemicals similar to fats and oils described by the SDA nomenclature system. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0823, is available at
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition.
On October 7, 2015, EPA received a petition from the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) requesting the Agency to address the “disproportionate regulatory burden” imposed on companies in the bio-based chemical sector, noting that a “limitation of source categories in the SDA system results in inequitable regulatory treatment for chemical substances that are functionally the same and chemically nearly identical.” Specifically, the petition asks EPA to commence a rulemaking process under TSCA section 8, the objective of which would be to “establish a procedure by which EPA can add new sources of fats and oils to the SDA-eligible list.”
The petition states that the SDA-eligible list is part of a broader “nomenclature system developed by SDA when the TSCA Inventory was initially compiled.” The term “SDA-eligible list” refers to a list found in the 1978 Candidate List of Chemical Substances on the TSCA Inventory, in “Addendum III: Chemical Substances of Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials” (Ref. 2). In Section I of that document, EPA described a chemical substance naming convention, attributed to the SDA that was available for “identifying and reporting certain multicomponent Class 2 chemical substances derived from natural fats and oils and synthetic long-chain alkyl substitutes.” The identification and reporting in question was the identification and reporting of chemical manufacture and processing to EPA, pursuant to a past reporting obligation under TSCA section 8(a), to inform EPA's original compilation of the TSCA Inventory under TSCA section 8(b). The document listed 35 “natural fats and oils,” as potential alkyl group sources. It provided that the particular chemical substances named under the SDA convention would not be identified “in terms of source.” However, chemical substances with alkyl groups derived from unlisted natural sources were beyond the scope of the naming convention. Thus, each time that a particular chemical substance was identified, reported, and entered into EPA's original compilation of the TSCA Inventory based on the SDA naming convention, the definition of that particular substance inherited a certain characterization from the SDA naming convention: Specifically, that the chemical substance in question was derived either from one or more of the 35 listed natural fats and oils or from synthetic long-chain alkyl substitutes.
The procedure that the petition asks EPA to establish by a TSCA section 8 rule is a procedure for submitting further requests to EPA. Specifically, it would be a regulation governing how the public would submit requests to amend the SDA-eligible list and how EPA would respond to such requests. The procedure would detail how EPA would review a request to include an additional source material of a fat or oil substance, “following a premanufacture notice or other appropriate notification to EPA,” in order to determine if it is “sufficiently similar” to sources of fat or oil substances with the same alkyl range that are already built into the SDA naming convention. After review, if EPA found “such similarity” between the requested additional source material and already-listed source materials, the contemplated rule would direct the Agency to add the requested source material to the SDA-eligible list in the SDA naming convention.
The petition explains that the outcome sought (in the event EPA granted a request under the procedure that petitioners now ask EPA to establish by section 8 rule) would be to authorize manufacturers of various chemical substances derived from the additional source material to “rely on the appropriate SDA alkyl range identity for purposes of Inventory listing and TSCA nomenclature.” The petition elsewhere clarifies what it means by “rely on,” when it notes that without “access to the alkyl range names,” the manufacturers would need to submit premanufacture notifications to EPA. The petition makes clear that the intended effect of enlarging the definitions of existing chemical substance listings in this fashion would be to limit the circumstances in which manufacturers would be deemed to be manufacturing a new chemical substance, and thus be subject to the requirements of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A).
While the petition includes no specific request to add a particular natural fat or oil to the “SDA-eligible” list, the bulk of the petition is concerned with giving, by way of background, the petitioners' general reasons to believe that such requests would have merit if submitted to EPA. The petition asserts, in general terms, that chemical substances derived from other natural sources “may be chemically indistinguishable from,” are “nearly identical” to, or are “substantially similar,” to chemical substances synthesized from one of the 35 listed natural sources. The petition also asserts that while such substances address “critical needs for sustainability,” there is a “key hindrance” to their commercialization. Specifically, the “key hindrance” is that certain of these chemical substances (or derivatives thereof) would be subject to EPA's pre-manufacture review under section 5 of TSCA, while assertedly similar chemical substances derived from one of the 35 listed natural sources would be existing chemical substances and therefore would not need to undergo such review. The petition claims that continuing to treat chemical substances derived from “these novel sources,” as new chemical substances “creates a disincentive for customers to switch from traditional oils.”
The specific action requested in the petition is that EPA “initiate a rulemaking under TSCA section 8 that would establish a process to amend the list of natural sources of oil and fat [the SDA-eligible list] . . . by considering the chemical equivalency of additional natural sources.” The petition supplies two reasons for the specific action requested. First, that EPA “should allow for new sources to be added,” to the list and second, that issuing such a regulatory proposal would not require a
After careful consideration, EPA denied the petitioner's request to initiate a TSCA section 8 rulemaking. EPA denied the request because the petition neither justified the petitioners' claim (that the initiation of a TSCA section 8 rulemaking proceeding is necessary) nor explained how petitioners believe EPA's actual rulemaking authorities under section 8 could be used to accomplish the objectives that petitioners are seeking. To the extent the petition was actually seeking an Agency order under TSCA section 8(b) (
1.
2.
The petition asserts that a new regulatory procedure is necessary, to govern public requests for changes to the SDA naming convention and EPA response to those requests. The reason given for why such a procedure is necessary is that the SDA naming convention “should allow for new sources to be added.” Yet the petition supplies no evidence of any current impediment to any party in making requests along these lines, or to EPA in considering such requests, which would be addressed if EPA were to promulgate a regulatory procedure governing the manner and method of making and responding to such requests. Part of the difficulty in following the petition's reasoning stems from the petition's conflation of two distinct issues: (1) Whether a chemical substance derived from an unlisted natural fat or oil can currently be treated as identical to another substance that
The petition correctly recognizes the current limitations of certain TSCA Inventory listings (
But the petition presumes, without justification, that until a certain preliminary EPA rulemaking has been completed, those same manufacturers lack a meaningful opportunity to request that EPA enlarge the definitional scope of one or more existing chemical substances named according to the SDA naming convention. The petition's failure to explain that a particular impediment exists (either to manufacturers in making these sorts of requests or to EPA in adjudicating them) is sufficient grounds to deny the request to commence a rulemaking proceeding intended to remove the unspecified impediment.
Thus, the petition does not demonstrate that the requested rule is necessary in any respect, much less that it is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury.
Even if the petition had established that a rulemaking proceeding is necessary, the petition would still be deficient. While the petition states in very general terms that it is seeking a change to the legal status quo (
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
Environmental protection, Natural sources of oil and fat, SDA nomenclature system, TSCA Inventory.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Petition findings and initiation of status reviews.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on various petitions to list, reclassify, or delist fish, wildlife, or plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that six petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, and we are not initiating status reviews in response to these petitions. We refer to these as “not-substantial” petition findings. We also find that 11 petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
When we conduct status reviews, we will consider all information that we have received. To ensure that we will have adequate time to consider submitted information during the status reviews, we request that we receive information no later than March 14, 2016. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (U.S.) species under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information for the species listed above in Table 1 (to be submitted as provided for in the
(1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions 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.”
You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing these 90-day findings is available for you to review at
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).
In considering whether conditions described within one or more of the factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to those conditions to evaluate whether the species may respond to the conditions in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a condition and the species responds negatively, the condition qualify as a stressors and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant the stressor is. If the stressor is sufficiently significant that it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act, the stressor constitutes a threat to the species. Thus, the identification of conditions that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these conditions may be operative threats that act on the species to a sufficient degree that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Colorado desert fringe-toed lizard, be listed under
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for Colorado desert fringe-toed lizard (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, Greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the Culebra skink (
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Culebra skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On April 24, 2013, we received a petition dated April 13, 2013, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the Great Basin silverspot be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Great Basin silverspot (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the greater Saint Croix skink.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the greater Saint Croix skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the greater Virgin Islands skink.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the greater Virgin Islands skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On December 17, 2014, we received a petition dated December 11, 2014, from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, requesting that the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear be reclassified as endangered and that critical habitat be designated for this population under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a February 2, 2015, letter to the petitioner acknowledging receipt of the petition, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition warranted an emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action (reclassifying from threatened status to endangered status) may be warranted for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On July 27, 2015, we received a petition dated July 24, 2015, from Lincoln County, Montana, requesting that we remove Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bears from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action (delisting) may be warranted for the Cabinet-Yaak population of grizzly bear (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Kings River slender salamander, be listed under the Act as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the Kings River slender salamander.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the lesser Saint Croix skink.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the lesser Saint Croix skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the Mona skink.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Mona skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On July 17, 2013, we received a petition dated July 9, 2013, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the narrow-foot diving beetle be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the narrow-foot diving beetle.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the narrow-foot diving beetle (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On September 23, 2013, we received a petition dated September 23, 2013, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Western Watersheds Project, and Friends of the Wild Swan, requesting that the fisher in its U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains (USNRMs) range be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an October 31, 2013, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the
On June 30, 2011, we published a 12-month finding (76 FR 38504) following a full status review of fishers in the USNRMs that concluded listing the entity as endangered or threatened under the Act was not warranted.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, including new information that petitioners submitted after the 2011 finding, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the fisher (Northern Rockies population) (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Monito skink, and lesser Virgin Islands skink be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the Puerto Rican skink.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Puerto Rico skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the sandstone night lizard, be listed under the Act as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the sandstone night lizard (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On September 20, 2013, we received a petition dated September 18, 2013, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the Scott riffle beetle be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Scott riffle beetle (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink,
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Virgin Islands bronze skink (
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
On November 14, 2014, we received a petition dated November 13, 2014, from the Western Watersheds Project and Buffalo Field Campaign, requesting that Yellowstone National Park bison be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
On March 2, 2015, we received a second petition dated March 2, 2015, from Mr. James A. Horsley, requesting that Yellowstone National Park bison be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 24, 2015, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition warranted an emergency listing.
This finding addresses both petitions, as they request the same action for the same entity.
Based on our review of the petitions and sources cited in the petitions, we find that the petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Yellowstone bison (
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Cabinet-Yaak population of grizzly bear (two petitions), Colorado desert fringe-toed lizard, Kings River slender salamander, sandstone night lizard, and the Yellowstone bison do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews for these species.
The petitions summarized above for the Culebra skink, Great Basin silverspot butterfly, greater Saint Croix skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, lesser Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, narrow-foot diving beetle, Northern Rockies population of fisher, Puerto Rico skink, Scott riffle beetle, and Virgin Islands bronze skink present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted.
Because we have found that these petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing is warranted.
It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider only the information in the petition and in our files, and we evaluate merely whether that constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding on a petition to list the oceanic whitetip shark (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by March 14, 2016.
You may submit comments, information, or data, by including “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0152” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 427-8491.
On September 21, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife requesting that we list the oceanic whitetip shark (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
The oceanic whitetip shark
The oceanic whitetip shark has a stocky build with a large rounded first dorsal fin and very long and wide paddle-like pectoral fins (Compagno, 1984). The head has a short and bluntly rounded nose and small circular eyes with nictitating membranes. The upper jaw contains broad, triangular serrated teeth, while the teeth in the lower jaw are more pointed and are only serrated near the tip (Compagno, 1984). The first dorsal fin is very wide with a rounded tip, originating just in front of the rear tips of the pectoral fins. The second dorsal fin originates over or slightly in front of the base of the anal fin. The body is grayish bronze to brown in color, but varies depending upon geographic location. The underside is whitish with a yellow tinge on some individuals (Compagno, 1984). The species also exhibits a color pattern of mottled white tips on its front dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins with black tips on its anal fin and on the ventral surfaces of its pelvic fins. They usually cruise slowly at or near the surface with their huge pectoral fins conspicuously outspread, but can suddenly dash for a short distance when disturbed (Compagno, 1984).
The oceanic whitetip shark is found in a diverse spectrum of locations: It is a surface-dwelling and predominantly oceanic-epipelagic shark, but occasionally coastal, tropical and warm temperate shark, usually found far offshore in the open sea. It has a clear preference for open ocean waters and its abundance increases away from continental and insular shelves (Backus
Oceanic whitetip sharks are high trophic level predators in open ocean ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts and cephalopods (Backus, 1954; Bonfil
The oceanic whitetip has an estimated maximum age of 17 years, although only a maximum age of 13 years has been confirmed (Lessa
Below we evaluate the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files to determine if the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If requested to list a global population or, alternatively, a DPS, we first determine if the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action is warranted for the global population. If it does, then we make a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species range-wide. If after this review we find that the species does not warrant listing range-wide, then we will consider whether the populations requested by the petition qualify as DPSs and warrant listing. If the petition does not present substantial information that the global population may warrant listing, but it has requested that we list any distinct populations of the species as threatened or endangered, then we consider whether the petition provides substantial information that the requested population(s) may qualify as DPSs under the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and if listing any of those DPSs may be warranted. We summarize our analysis and conclusions regarding the information presented by the petitioners and in our files on the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that we find may be affecting the species' risk of global extinction below.
The petition does not provide a global population abundance estimate for oceanic whitetip sharks, but states that the species was formerly one of the most common sharks in the ocean and has undergone serious declines throughout its global range. The petition asserts that a global decline of oceanic whitetip sharks has been caused mainly by commercial fishing (both direct harvest and bycatch) driven by demands of the shark fin trade. In the Northwest and Central Atlantic, the petition cites population declines of up to 70 percent since the early 1990s, and even more significant historical declines of up to 99 percent in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1950s. In the Southwest and equatorial Atlantic, the petition points to various but limited pieces of information indicating potential population declines and high fishing pressure in this region. In the Western and Central Pacific, the petition provides numerous lines of evidence, including a recent stock assessment report as well as other standardized catch per unit effort (CPUE) data, that oceanic whitetips have suffered significant population declines (> 90 percent in some areas) as well as declines in size and biomass in both the greater Western and Central Pacific as well as Hawaii. In the Eastern Pacific, the petition cites limited information based on nominal CPUE data that indicates an estimated 95 percent decline in bycatch rates of oceanic whitetips in purse seine fisheries. Finally, in the Indian Ocean, the petition notes that while trend information is limited for this region, a limited number of studies as well as some anecdotal information indicate that oceanic whitetip populations may be declining.
The last IUCN assessment of the oceanic whitetip shark was completed in 2006 and several estimates of global and subpopulation trends and status have been made and are described in the following text. In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in relative abundance cited by the petitioner were derived from standardized catch-rate indices estimated from self-reported fisheries logbook data by pelagic commercial longline fishers in Baum
In the Gulf of Mexico, the petition cited Baum and Myers (2004), which compared longline CPUE from research surveys from 1954-1957 to observed commercial longline sets from 1995-1999, and determined that the oceanic whitetip had declined by more than 150-fold, or 99.3 percent (95 percent CI: 98.3-99.8 percent) in the Gulf during that time. However, the methods and results of Baum
Thus, abundance trend estimates derived from standardized catch rate indices of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery suggest that oceanic whitetips have likely undergone a decline in abundance in this region. However, the conflicting evidence regarding the magnitude of decline between the fisheries logbook data and observer data cannot be fully resolved at this time. While the logbook dataset is the largest available for the western North Atlantic Ocean, the observer dataset is generally more reliable in terms of consistent identification and reporting, particularly of bycatch species. Data are not available in the petition or in our own files to assess the trend in population abundance in this region since 2006. However, because the logbook data from this region show consistent evidence of a significant and continued decline in oceanic whitetip sharks, we must consider this information in our 90-day determination.
The petition cites several lines of evidence indicating that oceanic whitetips in the Western and Central Pacific have suffered significant population declines throughout the region, including declining trends in standardized CPUE data as well as biomass and size indices. The most reliable evidence likely comes from the first and only stock assessment of oceanic whitetip, in which standardized CPUE series were estimated in the Western and Central Pacific based on observer data held by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and collected over the years from 1995-2009. Based on the data in the oceanic whitetip stock assessment, the median estimate of oceanic whitetip biomass in the Western Central Pacific in 2010 was 7,295 tons, which would be equivalent to a population of roughly 200,000 individuals. This stock assessment report (Rice and Harley, 2012) concluded that the catch, CPUE, and size composition data for oceanic whitetip all show consistent declines from 1995-2009. In addition to the stock assessment report, another study analyzing catch rates from observer data confirmed significant population declines for the oceanic whitetip. Standardized CPUE of longline fleets in the Western and Central Pacific declined significantly for oceanic whitetip sharks in tropical waters by 17 percent per year (CI: 14 percent to 20 percent) from 1996 to 2009, which equates to a total decline in annual values of 90 percent, with low uncertainty in the estimates (Clarke
Separate analyses have also been conducted for Hawaiian pelagic longline fisheries that found similar declines. Brodziak and Walsh (2013) showed a highly significant decreasing trend in standardized CPUE of oceanic whitetip from 1995 to 2010, resulting in a decline in relative abundance on the order of 90 percent. These results were similar to earlier results from Clarke and Walsh (2011) that also found oceanic whitetip CPUE decreased by greater than 90 percent since 1995 in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. These results suggest that declines of oceanic whitetip populations are not just regional, but rather a Pacific-wide phenomenon.
The petition acknowledged that in the Eastern Pacific, assessments of oceanic whitetip declines are less prevalent, but provided some information that oceanic whitetips have suffered significant population declines as a result of purse-seine fisheries in this region. According to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), unstandardized nominal catch-rate data for the oceanic whitetip shark from purse-seine sets on floating objects, unassociated sets and dolphin sets all show decreasing trends since 1994 (IATTC, 2007). On floating object sets in particular, nominal incidental catch of oceanic whitetip declined by approximately 95 percent (FAO, 2012).
Likewise, in other areas of the world, estimates of oceanic whitetip abundance are limited. In the Indian Ocean, the status and abundance of shark species is poorly known despite a long history of research and more than 60 years of commercial exploitation by large-scale tuna fisheries (Romanov
In conclusion, across the species' global range we find evidence suggesting that population abundance of the oceanic whitetip shark is declining or, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, potentially stabilized. While data are still limited with respect to population size and trends, we find the petition and our files sufficient in presenting substantial information on oceanic whitetip shark abundance, trends, or status to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted.
The petition indicated that oceanic whitetip sharks merit listing due to all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We discuss each of these below based on information in the petition, and the information readily available in our files.
The petition contends that oceanic whitetip sharks are at risk of extinction throughout their range due to pollutants, especially those that are able to bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high concentrations as a result of the species' high trophic position, long life, and large size. Of particular concern to the petitioners are high polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and mercury concentrations in oceanic whitetip shark tissues, which can cause a variety of negative physiological impacts. A study cited by the petition that analyzed the pollutant composition of an amalgamated liver oil sample taken from three shark species (including oceanic whitetip, silky (
Generally, we look for information in the petition and in our files to indicate that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion. Despite providing evidence that oceanic whitetip sharks accumulate pollutants in their tissues, the petitioners fail to provide evidence that these concentrations of PCBs and mercury are causing detrimental physiological effects to the species or may be contributing significantly to population declines in oceanic whitetip sharks to the point where the species may be at risk of extinction. In addition, we did not find any information in our files to suggest that pollutants are negatively impacting oceanic whitetip shark populations, such that it poses an extinction risk to the species. As such, we conclude that the information presented in the petition, and in our own files, on threats to the habitat of the oceanic whitetip shark does not provide substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the species.
The petition states that the threat of overutilization, as a result of historical and continued catch of the species in both targeted fisheries and, more importantly, incidentally as bycatch, is the primary driver of population declines observed for oceanic whitetip sharks. More specifically, the petition states that because oceanic whitetip fins are highly valued in the international fin market, with values of $45-85 per kilogram and categorized as “first choice” in Hong Kong, overutilization driven by the shark fin trade has resulted in population declines of oceanic whitetip. In fact, demand from the international fin market is considered to be the primary force driving retention of bycatch of this species, as the meat is considered to be of low commercial value (Mundy-Taylor and Crooke, 2013). Evidence suggests that the oceanic whitetip shark may account for approximately 2.8 percent [CI: 1.6-2.1 percent] of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, one of the world's largest fin-trading centers (Clarke, 2006). This translates to approximately 200,000 to 1.3 million oceanic whitetips that may enter the global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006). Given the ease of morphological identification of oceanic whitetip fins by traders, the best estimate of oceanic whitetip sharks' contribution to the trade is likely more accurate than that for other species because these fins are less likely to be inadvertently sorted into other categories. We found additional evidence in our files that oceanic whitetips are highly utilized in the shark fin trade. In a genetic barcoding study of shark fins from markets in Taiwan, oceanic whitetips were one of 20 species identified and comprised 0.38 percent of collected fin samples. Additionally, oceanic whitetips comprised 1.72 percent of fins genetically tested from markets throughout Indonesia (the largest shark catching country in the world). In another genetic barcoding study of fins from United Arab Emirates, the fourth largest exporter in the world of raw dried shark fins to Hong Kong, the authors found that the oceanic whitetip represented 0.45 percent of the trade from Dubai (Jabado
In addition to the many oceanic whitetips that are retained as bycatch in fisheries throughout its range, the petition contends that many oceanic whitetips incidentally caught as bycatch will die even when they are not retained as a result of post-capture mortality (
In the Northwest and Central Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the oceanic whitetip was once described as the most common pelagic shark throughout the warm-temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic and beyond the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically, oceanic whitetips were caught as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries targeting tuna and swordfish in this region, with an estimated 8,526 individuals recorded as captured in these fisheries logbooks from 1992 to 2000 (Baum
In the Southwest and equatorial Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip is commonly caught in both longline and purse-seine fisheries. The petition notes that data concerning oceanic whitetip population trends are less abundant in this region, but claims there is significant evidence of decline where the species was formerly abundant. In this region, oceanic whitetips were historically reported as the second-most abundant shark, outnumbered only by blue shark, in research surveys between 1992 and 1997 (FAO 2012). However, more recent observer data from the Uruguayan longline fleet operating in this region reported low CPUE values for oceanic whitetip from 2003 to 2006, with the highest CPUE recorded not exceeding 0.491 individuals/1,000 hooks. In total, only 63 oceanic whitetips were caught on 2,279,169 hooks and most were juveniles (Domingo
As in the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanic whitetip was also formerly one of the most abundant sharks throughout the Pacific Ocean. Evidence shows that oceanic whitetips commonly interact with both longline and purse-seine fisheries throughout the Pacific, with at least 20 member nations of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission recording the species in their fisheries. In the Western and Central Pacific, where sharks represent 25 percent of the longline fishery catch, observer data show that the oceanic whitetip shark is the 5th most common species of shark caught as bycatch out of a total 49 species reported by observers, and represents approximately 3 percent of the total shark catch. Additionally, the oceanic whitetip is the 2nd most common species of shark caught as bycatch in purse-seine fisheries in this region, representing nearly 11 percent of the total shark catch (Molony, 2007). In a recent stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific, the greatest impact on the species is attributed to bycatch from the longline fishery, with lesser impacts from target longline activities and purse-seining (Rice and Harley, 2012). From 1995 to 2009, rates of fishing mortality consistently increased, driven mainly by the increased effort in the longline fleet over the same time period, and remain substantially above maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (
Although standardized CPUE data for the purse-seine fishery are not available, the oceanic whitetip is one of only two species frequently caught in this fishery and has exhibited declines that resemble those in the longline fishery (Clarke
In the Central Pacific, oceanic whitetips are commonly caught as bycatch in Hawaii-based fisheries, and comprise 3 percent of the shark catch (Brodziak and Walsh, 2013). Based on observer data from the Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP), oceanic whitetip shark mean annual nominal CPUE decreased significantly from 0.428/1000 hooks in 1995 to 0.036/1000 hooks in 2010. This reflected a significant decrease in nominal CPUE on longline sets with positive catch from 1.690/1000 hooks to 0.773/1000 hooks, and a significant increase in longline sets with zero catches from 74.7 percent in 1995 to 95.3 percent in 2010. When standardized to account for factors such as sea surface temperature, fishery sector, and latitude, oceanic whitetip CPUE declined by more than 90 percent in the Hawaii-based longline fishery since 1995. Brodziak and Walsh (2013) found similar results by using several models in order to make an accurate assessment of the species' CPUE from 1995 to 2010 in the Hawaii-based shallow-set and deep-set longline fisheries. They also found a highly significant decreasing trend in standardized CPUE from 1995 to 2010, resulting in a decline in relative abundance on the order of 90 percent due to increased sets with zero catches as well as decreased CPUE on sets with positive catch. The authors of this study concluded that relative abundance of oceanic whitetip declined within a few years of the expansion of the longline fishery.
In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, oceanic whitetip sharks are most often taken as bycatch by ocean purse-seine fisheries. The oceanic whitetip shark was historically described as the second most common shark caught by the purse-seine fishery in the EPO (Compagno, 1984), and information collected by observers between 1993 and 2004 indicates this is still the case. In a recent effort to evaluate species composition of bycatch in Eastern Pacific purse-seine fisheries, species identification data for the Shark Characteristics Sampling Program showed that between March 2000 and March 2001, the oceanic whitetip comprised 20.8 percent of the total shark bycatch, second only to silky sharks (Román-Verdesoto and Orozco-Zöller, 2005). Since the mid-1980s, the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Pacific has been rapidly expanding (Williams and Terawasi, 2011), and despite the increase in fishery effort (or perhaps as a consequence of this increased fishing pressure), incidental catch of oceanic whitetips declined by more than 95 percent in the Eastern Pacific between 1994 and 2006. However, this decline is based on an unstandardized index using observer data from 100 percent of sets during the relatively short period that fish aggregating devices have been used (FAO, 2012). Overall, we found that apart from blue and silky sharks, there are no stock assessments available for shark species in the Eastern Pacific, and hence the impacts of bycatch on the population are unknown (IATTC, 2014). Nonetheless, a potential decline of this magnitude over a short period of time indicates that overutilization of the oceanic whitetip may be occurring in Eastern Pacific purse-seine fisheries, and warrants further investigation to determine whether it may be contributing significantly to the species' extinction risk.
In the Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip sharks are targeted by some semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are bycatch of industrial fisheries, including gillnet fisheries, pelagic longlines targeting tuna and swordfish and purse-seine fisheries. Countries that fish for various pelagic species of sharks include: Egypt, India, Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, where the probable or actual status of shark populations is
Overall, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the actual catch levels and trends of oceanic whitetip shark occurring throughout its range; however, it is likely that these rates are significantly under-reported due to a lack of comprehensive observer coverage in areas of its range in which the highest fishing pressure occurs, as well as a tendency for fishers to not record discards in fishery logbooks. Nevertheless, given the prevalence of oceanic whitetip as incidental catch throughout its range and its high value in the shark fin trade, combined with the species' low to moderate productivity (see
The petition contends that the oceanic whitetip shark is at risk of extinction throughout its range because some oceanic whitetip sharks are infected with a highly pathogenic bacterium,
The petition asserts that the existing international, regional, and national regulations do not adequately protect the oceanic whitetip shark and have been insufficient in preventing population declines. Additionally, the petition asserts that most existing regulations are inadequate because they limit retention of the oceanic whitetip shark and argues that the focus should be on limiting the catch of oceanic whitetip sharks in order to decrease fishery-related mortality, particularly given what the petition contends are the species' high post-catch mortality rates. Among the regulations that the petition cites as inadequate are shark finning bans and shark finning regulations. Shark finning bans are currently one of the most widely used forms of shark utilization regulations, and the petition notes that 21 countries, the European Union, and 9 Regional Fisheries
In the U.S. Atlantic, oceanic whitetip sharks are managed as part of the Pelagic shark complex under the U.S. Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The petition states that while the United States has a patchwork of measures that protect the oceanic whitetip to varying degrees, none of these measures (
In terms of other national measures, the petition provides a list of countries that have prohibited shark fishing in their respective waters or created shark-specific marine protected areas, but notes that many suffer from enforcement related issues, citing cases of illegal fishing and shark finning. The petition also highlights enforceability issues associated with international agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), regarding oceanic whitetip shark utilization and trade. The oceanic whitetip is listed under Appendix II of CITES, which means commercial trade of the species is regulated, but not prohibited. Based on the information presented in the petition as well as information in our files, we find that oceanic whitetip fins are highly valued and preferred in the shark fin trade, and can be identified in the shark fin market at the species level. While regulations banning the finning of sharks are a common form of shark management, we find that further evaluation of the inadequacy of existing regulatory measures is needed to determine whether this may be a threat contributing to the extinction risk of the species.
The petition states that oceanic whitetips have an increased susceptibility to extinction because they are a “K-selected” or “K-strategy” species. In other words, the petition asserts that the biological constraints of the oceanic whitetip shark, such as its low reproduction rate (typically 5-6 pups per litter), coupled with the time required to reach maturity (approximately 4-7 years) and the species' biennial reproductive cycle, contribute to the species' vulnerability to harvesting and its inability to recover rapidly. It is true that the oceanic whitetip shark and pelagic sharks, in general, exhibit relatively slow growth rates and low fecundity; however, oceanic whitetip sharks are considered to be a moderately productive species relative to other pelagic sharks. Smith
We conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the ESA section (4)(a)(1) threats of “present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range,” or “disease or predation” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the global population of the oceanic whitetip shark. However, we conclude that the petition and information in our files do present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the section 4(a)(1) factor “overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes” as well as “inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” and “other manmade or natural factors” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the species.
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition and information readily available in our files present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the oceanic whitetip shark worldwide as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a status review of the species. During the status review, we will determine whether the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, we consider the oceanic whitetip shark to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (September 21, 2016), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing the species is found to be warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the oceanic whitetip shark is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, including identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data on oceanic whitetip shark bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on oceanic whitetip shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the trade of oceanic whitetip shark products, including fins, jaws, meat, and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Shelled Pecans and the United States Standards for Grades of Pecans in the Shell. AMS is proposing to replace the term “midget” with “extra small” in the Shelled Pecan standards. AMS is also proposing to remove from both standards references to plastic models of pecan kernels, and information on where the color standards may be examined. These changes would modernize the terminology and information in the standards.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Training and Development Center, Riverside Business Park, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406; fax: (540) 361-1199, or on the Web at:
Contact Lindsay H. Mitchell at the address above, or by phone (540) 361-1120; fax (540) 361-1199; or, email
Section 203(c) (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program at the following Web site:
AMS is reviewing fruit and vegetable grade standards to assess their effectiveness for the industry and to modernize language. In addition, on May 13, 2013, AMS received a petition from the Little People of America that stated that the group is “trying to raise awareness around and eliminate the use of the word midget.” The petition further stated that, “Though the use of the word midget by the USDA when classifying certain food products is benign, Little People of America, and the dwarfism community, hopes that the USDA would consider phasing out the term midget.” Five grade standards contain the term “midget”: U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Lima Beans, U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms, U.S. Standards for Grades of Pickles, U.S. Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins, and U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Pecans. The standards for canned lima beans, canned mushrooms, pickles, and processed raisins will be covered in a separate notice and rule due to additional changes being made to those specific standards.
Prior to developing the proposed revisions to the pecan grade standards, AMS solicited comments and suggestions about the standards from the National Pecan Shellers Association (NPSA). The NPSA recommended replacing the term “midget” with “extra small.”
AMS is proposing to address the use of “midget” in the Shelled Pecan standards by replacing the term with “extra small” everywhere that it appears. AMS also is proposing to remove the paragraph from both the Shelled and In Shell standards that reference plastic models that are no longer produced, (§ 51.1436(b) and § 51.1403(b), respectively), and make minor editorial changes.
The proposed revisions would modernize the language in the grade standards. This notice provides a 60-day period for interested parties to comment on the proposed revisions to the standards.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of withdrawal.
This Notice informs the public that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is withdrawing the U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. Specifically, AMS is withdrawing: (1) The Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived from Such Livestock (Grass (Forage) Fed Marketing Claim Standard); and (2) the Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock (Naturally Raised Marketing Claim Standard).
David Bowden, Jr. Chief, Standardization Branch, Quality Assessment Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room2096-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.; Washington, DC 20250-0249,
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” USDA is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural products. One way AMS achieves this objective is through the development and maintenance of voluntary standards.
The U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims were initiated through a
AMS continually reviews the services it provides. During the course of this review, AMS has determined that certain services do not fit within the Agency's statutory mandate to facilitate the marketing of U.S. agricultural products. One such issue that has risen is the use of the U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, which AMS believes does not facilitate the marketing of agricultural products in a manner that is useful to stakeholders or consumers. When AMS verifies a production/marketing claim, a company often seeks to market the USDA-verified production/marketing claim on a food product label. However, the company must receive pre-approval from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or meet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. These agencies regulate food labels for the vast majority of agricultural commodities produced in the U.S. and ensure the labels are truthful and not misleading. The authority over production/marketing claim verification and food labeling approval presents challenges to companies wishing to market USDA-verified production/marketing claims on food labels, because there is no guarantee that an USDA-verified production/marketing claim will be approved by FSIS or FDA.
Additionally, AMS seeks to adhere to the requirements outlined in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 and The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113 or NTTAA),
Therefore, AMS acknowledges that the U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims do not always help facilitate the marketing of agricultural products and will develop and maintain U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims when there is a statutory mandate to do so.
Current users of the USDA Grass (Forage) Fed Marketing Claim Standard have several options. USDA ISO Guide 65/ISO/IEC 17065 and USDA Process Verified Program applicants must identify a new Grass-fed Standard their company intends to meet by February 11, 2016 and must implement the new standard by April 11, 2016. This may be accomplished by (1) converting the USDA Grass (Forage) Fed Marketing Claim Standard into their private grass-fed standard, (2) using another recognized grass-fed standard, or (3) developing a new grass-fed standard. For the Small and Very Small Producer Program, applicants will see minimal change, as the requirements will be included in a procedural document.
AMS will list each company and the grass-fed standard it uses on the appropriate Official Listing.
There are no current users of the USDA Naturally Raised Marketing Claim Standard and therefore, there is no impact.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full affect if received within February 11, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), herein referred to as RUS or the Agency, announces its Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Grant Program application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. This notice is being issued in order to allow potential applicants time to submit proposals and give the Agency time to process applications within the current fiscal year. RUS will publish on its Web site at
In addition to announcing the application window, RUS announces the minimum and maximum amounts for DLT grants applicable for the fiscal year. The DLT Grant Program regulation can be found at 7 part CFR 1703 (Subparts D through E).
Submit completed paper or electronic applications for grants according to the following deadlines:
•
•
• If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
Copies of the FY 2016 Application Guide and materials for the DLT Grant Program may be obtained through:
(1) The DLT Web site at
(2) The RUS Office of Loan Origination and Approval at (202) 720-0800.
(1)
(2)
Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, telephone: (202) 720-0800, fax: 1 (844) 885-8179.
DLT grants are designed to provide access to education, training, and health care resources for rural Americans. The DLT Program is authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa and provides financial assistance to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies that students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents can use. The regulation for the DLT Program can be found at 7 CFR part 1703 (Subparts D through E).
The grants, which are awarded through a competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunications-enabled information, audio and video equipment, and related advanced technologies which extend educational and medical applications into rural areas. Grants are intended to benefit end-users in rural areas, who are often not in the same location as the source of the educational or health care service.
As in years past, the FY 2016 DLT Grant Application Guide has been updated based on program experience. All applicants should carefully review and prepare their applications according to instructions in the FY 2016 Application Guide and sample materials. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's own risk.
Under 7 CFR 1703.124, the Administrator established a minimum grant amount of $50,000 and a maximum grant amount of $500,000 for FY 2016.
Award documents specify the term of each award, and the standard grant agreement is available at
a. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for DLT Grant Program financial assistance:
i. An incorporated organization or a partnership;
ii. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b;
iii. A state or local unit of government;
iv. A consortium, as defined in 7 CFR 1703.102; or
v. Other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.
b. Electric and telecommunications borrowers under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901
c. Corporations that have been convicted of a Federal felony within the past 24 months are not eligible. Any corporation that has been assessed to have any unpaid federal tax liability, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed and is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance.
d. Applicants must have an active registration with current information in the System for Award Management (SAM) (previously the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)) at
The DLT Program requires matching contributions for grants. See 7 CFR 1703.122, 1703.125(g), and the FY 2016 Application Guide for information on required matching contributions.
a. Grant applicants must demonstrate matching contributions, in cash or in kind (new, non-depreciated items), of at least fifteen (15) percent of the total amount of financial assistance requested. Matching contributions must be used for eligible purposes of DLT grant assistance (see 7 CFR 1703.121 and Section D(7)(b) of this Notice).
b. Greater amounts of eligible matching contributions may increase an applicant's score (see 7 CFR 1703.126(b)(4)).
c. Applications that do not provide sufficient documentation of the required fifteen percent match will be declared ineligible.
d. Discounts and Donations. In review of applications submitted in FY 2014 and FY 2015, it was determined that vendor donated matches did not have any value without a corresponding purchase of additional equipment proposed to be purchased with grant funds. For example, for many of the proposed grant applications, software licenses were donated in support of grant applications. Without a corresponding purchase of the same vendor's equipment, this donation would have no value towards the project. This is considered a vendor discount which has never been eligible under this program. As a result, such matches were determined to be ineligible, which in some cases disqualified applicants from further consideration. In kind matches from vendors are, therefore, no longer considered eligible. This is consistent with past practices prior to FY 2014.
e. Eligible Equipment and Facilities. See 7 CFR 1703.102 and the FY 2016 Application Guide for more information regarding eligible and ineligible items.
a. Minimum Rurality Requirements. To meet the minimum rurality requirements, applicants must propose end-user sites that accrue a total average score of at least twenty (20) points. To receive points, an end-user site must not be located within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population in excess of 20,000 inhabitants. For more information regarding rurality requirements and scoring, see 7 CFR 1703.126(b)(2) and the FY 2016 Application Guide.
i. Hub sites may be located in rural or non-rural areas, but end-user sites need
ii. If a grant application includes a site that is included in any other DLT grant application for FY 2016, or a site that has been included in any DLT grant funded in FY 2015 or FY2014, the application should contain a detailed explanation of the related applications or grants. The Agency may not approve grants that lack a clear explanation to justify a nonduplication finding.
b. Ineligibility of Projects in Coastal Barrier Resources Act Areas. Projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
The FY 2016 Application Guide provides specific, detailed instructions for each item in a complete application. The Agency emphasizes the importance of including every required item and strongly encourages applicants to follow the instructions carefully, using the examples and illustrations in the FY 2016 Application Guide. Applications submitted by the application deadline, but missing critical items, will be returned as ineligible. The Agency will not solicit or consider scoring eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. However, depending on the specific scoring criteria, applications that do not include all items necessary for scoring may still be eligible applications, but may not receive full or any credit if the information cannot be verified. See the FY 2016 Application Guide for a full discussion of each required item. For requirements of completed grant applications, refer to 7 CFR 1703.125.
1.
a. Electronic Copies are available at
b. Paper Copies are available from the Rural Utilities Service, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, (202) 720-0800.
a. Carefully review the DLT Application Guide and the 7 CFR part 1703, which detail all necessary forms and worksheets. A table summarizing the necessary components of a complete application can be found in this section.
b. Description of Project Sites. Most DLT grant projects contain several project sites. Site information must be consistent throughout the application. The Agency has provided a site worksheet that lists the required information. Applicants should complete the site worksheet with all requisite information. Applications without consistent site information will be returned as ineligible.
c. Submission of Application Items. Given the high volume of program interest, applicants should submit the required application items in the order indicated in the FY 2016 Application Guide. Applications that are not assembled and tabbed in the specified order prevent timely determination of eligibility. For applications with inconsistencies among submitted copies, the Agency will base its evaluation on the original signed application received.
d. Table of Required Application Items.
e. Number of copies of submitted applications.
i. Applications submitted on paper. Submit the original application and one (1) paper copy to RUS, as well as one digital copy on a CD/DVD or Flash Drive. Additionally, submit one (1) additional copy to the state government single point of contact as described below.
ii. Applications submitted electronically. Submit the electronic application once. The additional paper copy is unnecessary to send. Applicants should identify and number each page in the same manner as the paper application. Additionally, submit one (1) additional copy to the state government single point of contact as described below.
iii. State Government Single Point of Contact. Submit one (1) copy to the state government single point of contact, if one has been designated, at the same time as application submission to the Agency. If the project is located in more than one State, submit a copy to each state government single point of contact. See
3.
4.
a. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than March 14, 2016 to be eligible for FY 2016 grant funding. Late applications, applications which do not include proof of mailing or shipping, and incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2016 grant funding. In the event of an incomplete application, the Agency will notify the applicant in writing, return the application, and terminate all further action.
i. Address paper applications to the Telecommunications Program, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2808, STOP 1597, Washington, DC 20250-1597. Applications should be marked, “Attention: Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval.”
ii. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping by the deadline consisting of one of the following:
A. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark;
B. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
C. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
iii. Due to screening procedures at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via regular mail through the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents and delay delivery to the DLT Program. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method.
b. Electronic grant applications must be received no later than March 14, 2016 to be eligible for FY 2016 funding. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2016 grant funding.
i. Applications will not be accepted via fax or electronic mail.
ii. Electronic applications for grants must be submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at
iii. Grants.gov requires some credentialing and online authentication procedures. These procedures may take several business days to complete. Therefore, the applicant should complete the registration, credentialing, and authorization procedures at Grants.gov before submitting an application.
iv. Applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as well as have current registration with the System for Award Management (SAM). Further information on DUNS and SAM can be found in sections D(3) and D(4) of this notice as well as in the FY 2016 Application Guide.
v. If system errors or technical difficulties occur, use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.
c. If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
The DLT Grant Program is subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” As stated in section D(2)(e)(iii) of this notice, a copy of a DLT grant application must be submitted to the state single point of contact, if one has been designated. See
a. Hub sites not located in rural areas are not eligible for grant assistance unless they are necessary to provide DLT services to end-users in rural areas. See 7 CFR 1703.101(h).
b. Table of Ineligible and Eligible Items. The following table includes a list of common items and whether each item is eligible for financial assistance. Applicants should exclude ineligible items and ineligible matching contributions from the budget unless those items are clearly documented as vital to the project. See the FY 2016 Application Guide for a recommended budget format and detailed budget compilation instructions.
Grants applications are scored competitively and are subject to the criteria listed below (total possible points: 235). See 7 CFR 1703.126 and the FY 2016 Application Guide for more information on the scoring criteria.
a.
i. Economic characteristics.
ii. Educational challenges.
iii. Health care needs.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Grant applications are ranked by the final score. RUS selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds. In addition, the Agency has the authority to limit the number of applications selected in any one state or for any one project during a fiscal year. See 7 CFR 1703.127 for a description of the grant application selection process. In addition, it should be noted that an application receiving fewer points can be selected over a higher scoring application in the event that there are insufficient funds available to cover the costs of the higher scoring application, as stated in 7 CFR 1703.172(b)(3).
a. In addition to the scoring criteria that rank applications against each other, the Agency evaluates grant applications on the following items, in accordance with 7 CFR 1703.127:
i. Financial feasibility. A proposal that does not indicate financial feasibility or that is not sustainable will not be approved for an award.
ii. Technical considerations. An application that contains flaws that would prevent the successful implementation, operation, or sustainability of the project will not be approved for an award.
iii. Other aspects of proposals that contain inadequacies that would undermine the ability of the project to comply with the policies of the DLT Program.
b.
i. American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands applications are exempt from the matching requirement for awards having a match amount of up to $200,000 (see 48 U.S.C. 1469a; 91 Stat. 1164).
ii. Tribal Jurisdiction or Trust Areas. RUS will offer special consideration to applications that contain at least one end-user site within a trust area or a tribal jurisdictional area. Such applications will be awarded 15 points. The application must include a map that shows the end-user site(s) located in the trust or tribal jurisdictional areas and cites the geographical coordinates and physical address(es) of the end-user site(s). The applicant will also need to submit evidence indicating that the area where the end-user site is located is a trust area or a tribal jurisdictional area. See the DLT Grant Program regulation as well as the FY 2016 Application Guide for a list of accepted documentation.
iii. “Promise Zone” Areas. RUS will offer special consideration to applications that contain at least one end-user site within a “Promise Zone” area. Such applications will be awarded 15 points. The application must include a map that shows the end-user site(s) located in the “Promise Zone” area and cites the geographical coordinates and physical address(es) of the end-user site(s). Current “Promise Zones” include the South Carolina Low Country, Choctaw Nation, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and the Kentucky Highlands. For further information, see the “Promise Zone” Web site at
iv. “Strike Force” Areas. RUS will offer special consideration to
c.
RUS notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by mailing or emailing a copy of an award letter. The receipt of an award letter does not authorize the applicant to commence performance under the award. After sending the award letter, the Agency will send an agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. A copy of the standard agreement is posted on the RUS Web site at
The items listed in Section E of this notice, the DLT Grant Program regulation, FY 2016 Application Guide and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include but are not limited to:
a. Executing a Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Agreement.
b. Using Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements (along with the submission of receipts for expenditures, timesheets, and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement).
c. Providing annual project performance activity reports until the expiration of the award.
d. Ensuring that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing DLT grant funds and matching funds (receipts for expenditures are to be included in this documentation).
e. Providing a final project performance report.
f. Complying with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:
i. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
ii. 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension).
g. Signing Form AD-3031 (“Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants”) (for corporate applicants only).
h. Complying with Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
a. Performance reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to RUS until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project in meeting the DLT Grant Program objectives. See 7 CFR 1703.107 for additional information on these reporting requirements.
b. Financial reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year in which a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by United States Department of Agriculture audit regulations. See 7 CFR 1703.108 and 2 CFR part 200 (Subpart F) for a description of the financial reporting requirements.
c. Recipient and Sub-recipient Reporting. The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:
i. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to
ii. The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to
iii. The Total Compensation of the Sub-recipient's Executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Sub-recipient (if the Sub-recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made.
d. Record Keeping and Accounting. The contract will contain provisions related to record keeping and accounting requirements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
USDA prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age,
Individuals who wish to file an employment complaint must contact their agency's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Counselor within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at
Individuals who wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination must complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 (English) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish).
Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact USDA by mail or email. Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The Census Bureau requires mandatory filing of all export information via the AES. This requirement is mandated through Public Law 107-228 of the Foreign Trade Relations Act of 2003. This law authorizes the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to require all persons who file export information according to title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), chapter 9, to file such information through the AES.
The AES is the primary instrument used for collecting export trade data, which are used by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes. The AES record provides the means for collecting data on U.S. exports. Title 13, U.S.C., chapter 9, sections 301-307, mandates the collection of these data. The regulatory provisions for the collection of these data are contained in the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 30. The official export statistics collected from these tools provide the basic component for the compilation of the U.S. position on merchandise trade. These data are an essential component of the monthly totals provided in the U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services Press Release, a principal economic indicator and a primary component of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Traditionally, other federal agencies have used the Electronic Export Information (EEI) for export control purposes to detect and prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.
Since 2013, the Census Bureau and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have implemented the following enhancements to the AES: (1) Added Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) and increased edits and validations between License Codes and ECCNs; (2) developed six new license codes, three of which allow corrections to licensed shipments identified in voluntary self-disclosures and the remaining three are used to identify shipments involving .y 600 Series ECCN items, support for the Cuban people, and Australia International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Exemptions; (3) developed a new filing option indicator for the Advanced Export Information pilot program to indicate a partial or complete commodity shipment filing; (4) adjusted the Foreign Trade Zone Indicator to accept seven characters instead of five; and (5) migrated the AES to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) platform to modernize the technology and adhere to the requirements of developing a single window in accordance with Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, through the International Trade Data System. The AES will be accessed via a portal in ACE. Once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements, is published, the following enhancements may be implemented in the AES: (1) Develop an original Internal Transaction Number (ITN) field; and (2) develop a used electronics indicator.
The changes identified in this Final Rule will require the addition of two data elements in the AES. The added data elements include the original ITN and the used electronics indicator. The original ITN field is an optional data element and is utilized if the filer creates an additional AES record for a shipment that was previously filed. The next data element added is the used electronics indicator, which is a conditional data element. The indicator will be used to improve information on the quantity and destination of used electronics. These revisions should not affect the average three-minute response time for the completion of the AES record. Constant advances in technology and heightened knowledge of filers offset the time required to complete the new fields in the AES record. In addition, repetitious information can be entered automatically via templates and profiles, and the number of data entry sections has been reduced to improve
In addition to the two new proposed data elements that will be added to the AES, the Census Bureau added language to include the new timeframes for split shipments addressed in FTR Letter #6, Notice of Regulatory Change for Split Shipments. In practice, the export trade community currently adheres to the split shipment filing timeframes. The Census Bureau also revised language to reflect the two options for filing EEI. The two options are filing via AESDirect or filing to the AES mainframe. Finally, the Census Bureau added language to the FTR to ensure consistency with the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Export Administration Regulations (EAR) based on the Export Control Reform. These clarifications do not impose new reporting requirements.
The information collected via the Automated Export System (AES) conveys what is being exported (description and commodity classification number), how much is exported (quantity, shipping weight, and value), how it is exported (mode of transport, exporting carrier, and whether containerized), from where (state of origin and port of export), to where (port of unloading and country of ultimate destination), and when a commodity is exported (date of exportation). The identification of the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) shows who is exporting goods. The USPPI and/or the forwarding or other agent information provides a contact for verification of the information.
The information is used by the U.S. Federal Government and the private sector. The Federal Government uses every data element on the AES record. The Census Bureau published the Interim Final Rule “Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Uses of Electronic Export Information” to describe how EEI will be accessed and utilized under the International Trade Data System (ITDS). The ITDS was established to eliminate the redundant information collection requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce and to effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade. It establishes a single portal system for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by all participating federal agencies. In addition, the rule allows federal agencies with appropriate authority to access export data in the AES and ensure consistency with the Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses issued on February 19, 2014.
The data collected from the AES serves as the official record of export transactions. The mandatory use of the AES enables the Federal Government to produce more accurate export statistics. The Census Bureau delegated the authority to enforce the FTR to the BIS's Office of Export Enforcement along with the Department of Homeland Security's CBP and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The mandatory use of the AES also facilitates the enforcement of the Export Administration Regulations for the detection and prevention of exports of high technology commodities to unauthorized destinations by the BIS and the CBP; the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by the U.S. Department of State (State Department) for the exports of munitions; and the validation of the Kimberly Process Certificate for the exports of rough diamonds.
Other Federal agencies use this data to develop the components of the merchandise trade figures that are used in the calculations for the balance of payments and GDP accounts to evaluate the effects of the value of U.S. exports. The data is also used to enforce U.S. export laws and regulations, to plan and examine export promotion programs and agricultural development and assistance programs, and to prepare for and assist in trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Collection of these data also eliminates the need for conducting additional surveys for the collection of information as the AES shows the relationship of the parties to the export transaction (as required by the Bureau of Economic Analysis). These AES data are also used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a source for developing the export price index and by the U.S. Department of Transportation for administering the negotiation of reciprocal arrangements for transportation facilities between the United States and other countries. Additionally, a collaborative effort amongst the Census Bureau, the National Governors' Association and other data users resulted in the development of export statistics requiring the state of origin to be reported on the AES. This information enables state governments to focus activities and resources on fostering the exports of goods that originate in their states.
Export statistics collected from the AES aid private sector companies, financial institutions, and transportation entities in conducting market analysis and market penetration studies for the development of new markets and market-share strategies. Port authorities, steamship lines, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and air transport associations use these data for measuring the volume and effect of air or vessel shipments and the need for additional or new types of facilities.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
On September 8, 2015, the Piedmont Triad Partnership, grantee of FTZ 230, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corporation, within FTZ 230—Site 30, in Kernersville, North Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 8, 2015, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), a potential operator of FTZ 119, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facilities located in Benson, Minnesota.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 27th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Blaine Wiltse, 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; telephone: (202) 482-6345.
These final results of administrative review cover four exporters of the subject merchandise, Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. and Peer Bearing Company (collectively, CPZ/SKF), Ningbo Xinglun Bearings Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Xinglun), Xinchang Kaiyuan Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd. (Kaiyuan), and Yantai CMC Bearing Co. Ltd. (Yantai CMC). The Department selected as CPZ/SKF and Yantai CMC as mandatory respondents for individual examination; however, we subsequently found that Yantai CMC does not qualify for a separate rate.
On July 7, 2015, the Department published the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by the Order
In the
With respect to Yantai CMC, however, we determined in the
For the exporters subject to a review that are determined to be eligible for a separate rate, but are not selected as individually examined respondents, the Department generally weight averages the rates calculated for the individually-examined respondents, excluding any rates that are zero,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes in the margin calculation for CPZ/SKF. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Issues and Decision Memo.
The POR is June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014.
Because Yantai CMC did not demonstrate that it is entitled to a separate rate, the Department finds Yantai CMC to be part of the PRC-wide entity. No party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity and the entity's rate is not subject to change.
Additionally, we are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Where an importer- (or customer-) specific
For entries of subject merchandise exported by CPZ/SKF we calculated an
For Yantai CMC, because the Department determined that this company did not qualify for a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to assess dumping duties on the company's entries of subject merchandise at the rate of 92.84 percent.
For Kaiyuan and Xinglun, the companies not selected for individual examination, the
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 or Ross Belliveau at (202) 482-4952, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On December 16, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of large residential washers (washing machines) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Whirlpool Corporation (Petitioner).
On December 16, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.
On January 4, 2016, Petitioner filed an amendment to the Petition, clarifying one of its responses in the Petition Supplement.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of washing machines from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect
Because the Petition was filed on December 16, 2015, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is washing machines from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of washing machines to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe washing machines, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on January 25, 2016, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on February 4, 2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that washing machines constitute a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared its shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, Petition Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenue, and weakening financial position.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an investigation of imports of washing machines from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.
Petitioner based U.S. prices on advertised retail prices for representative washing machines produced in the PRC and sold at major retailers in the U.S. market during the POI.
Petitioner stated that the Department currently treats the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country and, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department.
Petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration.
Based on the information provided by Petitioner, it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Petitioner based the FOPs for materials on the actual quantities of material components for the same models of washing machines used as the basis of U.S. price, derived through a “product teardown” process,
Petitioner valued the FOPs for raw materials using reasonably available, public import data for Thailand from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period of investigation.
Petitioner valued labor using quarterly Thai labor data published by Thailand's National Statistics Office (NSO).
Petitioner used public information, as compiled by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), to value electricity.
Petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of washing machines from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for washing machines from the PRC range from 68.92 to 109.04 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on washing machines from the PRC, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether washing machines from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.
Petitioner named two companies as producers/exporters of washing machines subject to the scope of this investigation.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of washing machines from the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The products covered by this investigation are all large residential washers and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China.
For purposes of this investigation, the term “large residential washers” denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of the orientation of the rotational axis, with a cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches (62.23 cm) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 cm), except as noted below.
Also covered are certain parts used in large residential washers, namely: (1) All cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in large residential washers; (2) all assembled tubs
Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” segment meeting either of the following two definitions:
(1) (a) It contains payment system electronics;
(2) (a) it contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) such that, in normal operation,
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a vertical rotational axis; (2) are top loading;
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading;
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading; and (3) have cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of more than 28.5 inches (72.39 cm).
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that a major amendment to Permit No. 16239 has been issued to Dan Engelhaupt, Ph.D., HDR EOC, 5700 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA 23502-1859.
The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Carrie Hubard or Courtney Smith, (301) 427-8401.
On August 27, 2015, notice was published in the
Permit No. 16239, issued on September 11, 2013 (78 FR 60852), authorizes the permit holder to harass cetacean and pinniped species during vessel and aerial survey activities, including behavioral observations and
The amendment authorizes: (1) Increasing takes for some species during aerial and vessel visual surveys to document presence/absence, behavior, and movement of marine mammals before, during, and after Naval training exercise operations, offshore energy installations, oil and gas exploration and production, and pier refurbishment/replacement; (2) collecting biopsy samples to document genetic variation within populations, gender, foraging patterns, and stress levels; and (3) using multiple tag types, including satellite and digital acoustic tags, to document movement and dive patterns, social and population structure, and habitat use. See tables in the permit amendment for numbers of takes by species, stock and activity.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a document in the
HAB and Hypoxia Experts, and Interested Parties (February 9, 2016)—Go to
Password: Habsnhypoxia.
Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 741 106 359.
Password: Habsnhypoxia.
Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 746 444 650.
Password: Habsnhypoxia.
Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 743 466 568.
Caitlin Gould (
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a document in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting and hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Guam Mariana Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Mariana Archipelago FEP AP Advisory Panel to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The Guam Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, January 28, 2015, between 6:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. and the CNMI Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Friday, January 29, 2015, between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see
The Guam Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Hilton Guam Resort and Spa, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, Guam, 96913. The CNMI Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Fiesta Resort and Spa Saipan, Saipan Beach Road, Garapan, Saipan, CNMI, 96950.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Notice and request for information.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) supervises and enforces compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) for certain financial institutions and maintains a resubmission schedule and guidelines (Resubmission Guidelines) describing when supervised institutions should correct and resubmit HMDA data. The Bureau is considering whether changes to its HMDA Resubmission Guidelines may be appropriate for HMDA data that will be submitted under recent amendments to Regulation C, which implements HMDA. The Bureau requests information from the public on what changes to the Bureau's
Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2015-0058, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
For submission process questions please contact Monica Jackson, Office of Executive Secretary, at 202-435-7275. For inquires related to the substance of this request, please contact Tim Lambert, Senior Counsel, Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, at 202-435-7523 or
12 U.S.C. 5511(c).
HMDA and Regulation C require certain financial institutions to collect, report, and disclose data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in originations.
Currently, the Bureau's Resubmission Guidelines provide, among other things, that institutions reporting fewer than 100,000 loans or applications on the HMDA loan/application register (LAR) should be required to correct and resubmit HMDA data when errors are found in (1) ten percent or more of the HMDA LAR sample entries; or (2) five percent or more of sample entries within an individual data field. The Bureau's Resubmission Guidelines instruct that institutions reporting 100,000 or more entries on the HMDA LAR should be required to correct and resubmit HMDA data when errors are found in (1) four percent or more of the HMDA LAR sample entries; or (2) between two and four percent of the sample entries within an individual data field. The Resubmission Guidelines note that resubmission may be required even if sample error rates are below the specified thresholds if the errors make analysis of the institution's lending unreliable.
The Bureau requests information on what modifications to the Bureau's Resubmission Guidelines may be appropriate for the data that will be reported under the amendments made to Regulation C in the Bureau's final rule. In particular, the Bureau asks commenters to respond to the following questions:
1. Should the Bureau continue to use error percentage thresholds to determine the need for data resubmission? If not, how else may the Bureau ensure data integrity and compliance with HMDA and Regulation C?
2. If the Bureau retains error percentage thresholds, should the thresholds be calculated differently than they are today? If so, how and why?
3. If the Bureau retains error percentage thresholds, should it continue to maintain separate error thresholds for the entire HMDA LAR sample and individual data fields within the LAR sample? If not, why?
4. If the Bureau retains error percentage thresholds, should it continue to provide different thresholds for institutions with different LAR sizes? If so, what thresholds should the Bureau apply to which LAR sizes? Specifically, should the Bureau retain the stricter resubmission thresholds it applies to institutions with 100,000 or more LAR entries? If not, should distinct error thresholds be based on criteria other than LAR size?
5. If the Bureau retains error percentage thresholds, should it apply different thresholds to different HMDA data fields? If so, on what basis could the Bureau distinguish one kind or type of HMDA data field from another? If, for example, the Bureau were to identify certain data fields as “key fields” that are held to a more stringent resubmission standard than other fields, how could the Bureau determine which fields are “key” and determine the appropriate threshold?
6. If the Bureau retains error percentage thresholds, should it treat systemic errors differently from non-systemic errors? If so, how should the Bureau distinguish between systemic and non-systemic errors?
7. Should the Bureau separately survey a financial institution's internal data for HMDA-reportable transactions that were omitted from the institution's HMDA LAR? If so, how should the Bureau conduct the survey and determine when omissions require correction and resubmission?
8. Should the Bureau, for some kinds or types of errors, require that an institution correct and resubmit its HMDA submission and, for other kinds or types of errors, require only that the
9. Should the Bureau's HMDA review procedures or guidelines address circumstances in which HMDA data are reported by several financial institutions that have an affiliate and/or subsidiary relationship with each other? If so, how?
10. Are any changes needed in how the Bureau selects HMDA samples to conduct HMDA data integrity reviews? If so, what changes are needed and why?
11. Are any other changes needed in the manner in which the Bureau conducts its HMDA data integrity reviews? If so, what changes are needed and why?
12. Are there any technological or other changes that could be made to the HMDA data collection system or to the process by which it applies edits to identify possible errors that could help HMDA reporters reduce the frequency of errors or otherwise promote data integrity?
The Bureau anticipates that it will not separately propose and solicit public comment on any specific changes to its Resubmission Guidelines before finalizing and publishing the changes.
Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Intelligence University.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors has been scheduled. The meeting is closed to the public.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 (7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and Wednesday, January 20, 2016 (7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.).
Defense Intelligence Agency 7400 Pentagon, ATTN: NIU, Washington, DC 20301-7400.
Dr. David R. Ellison, President, DIA National Intelligence University, Washington, DC 20340-5100, Phone: (202) 231-3344.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of January 19-20, 2016, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and therefore will be closed. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 11, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-502-7411.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
ED requested emergency clearance processing (approved in November 2015; OMB# 1850-0582 v.17), due to the Government Accounting Standards Board's (GASB) revision of their reporting standards that also impacts reporting of some of the institutions in IPEDS, to revise the 2015-16 IPEDS Finance forms and continue the remaining parts of the 2015-16 IPEDS collection as previously approved (OMB# 1850-0582 v.13-15). As part of the emergency clearance, new screening question was added to the 2015-16 IPEDS Finance survey for institutions to indicate whether they have additional (or decreased) pension expense, additional pension liability (or assets), or additional deferral to report as a result of GASB Statement 68. For the institutions that answer “yes”, four fields have been added to collect the amounts of the additional (or decreased) expense, additional liability (or assets), deferred inflows of resources, and deferred outflows of resources. This submission extends the public comment period under regular approval process (with a 60-day followed by a 30-day public comment periods) on the revisions approved under the emergency clearance process (OMB# 1850-0582 v.17).
Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Public Meeting.
The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is implementing a consent-based siting process to establish an integrated waste management system to transport, store, and dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high level defense radioactive waste. In a consent-based siting approach, DOE will work with communities, tribal governments and states across the country that express interest in hosting any of the facilities identified as part of an integrated waste management system. DOE is hosting a public meeting on January 20, 2016 to discuss next steps towards implementing a consent-based siting process for nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.
Remote Access and Registration: Attendees are encouraged to pre-register to expedite the check in process. Seating is limited to the room capacity and seats will be available on a first come, first served basis. The meeting will include a conference call phone number and will be webcast live on the Internet. Registration and remote access instructions including technical support contact information will be provided on the DOE Web site prior to the meeting at
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice.
On December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Energy issued a determination (“Secretarial Determination”) covering the lease of high-assay low enriched uranium for medical isotope production projects through the Department's Uranium Lease and Take-Back Program (ULTB). The Secretarial Determination covers transfers of up to 500 kilograms uranium (kgU) per year of low enriched uranium (LEU) at up to 19.75 percent uranium-235 in the two years following approval of the determination to support molybdenum-99 production. For the reasons set forth in the Department's “Analysis of Potential Impacts of Uranium Transfers on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries,” which is incorporated into the Determination, the Secretary determined that these transfers will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry.
Mr. Peter Karcz, ULTB Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-0488, or email
The Department of Energy (DOE) holds inventories of uranium in various forms and quantities—including low-enriched uranium (LEU) and natural uranium—that have been declared as excess and are not dedicated to U.S. national security missions. Within DOE, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) coordinate the management of these excess uranium inventories. NNSA down-blends excess highly-enriched uranium to high-assay low-enriched uranium—above the commercial level of 5 wt-% and up to about 19.75 wt-% of the isotope U-235—in support of its nonproliferation objectives and missions. Common applications of such high-assay materials are as fuels for domestic and foreign research reactors and as target materials for the production of medical isotopes.
This notice involves high-assay LEU transfers of this type to support molybdenum-99 producers in such applications. These transfers fulfill a directive in the American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-239, Division C, Title XXXI, Subtitle F, 42 U.S.C. 2065) for the Department to establish a program to make low enriched uranium available, through lease contracts, for irradiation for the production of molybdenum-99 for medical uses. These transfers also support U.S. nuclear nonproliferation initiatives, by providing a path for down-blended highly enriched uranium (HEU) and encouraging the use of LEU in civil applications in lieu of HEU.
These transfers are conducted in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011
On December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Energy issued a determination (“Secretarial Determination”) covering the lease of high-assay low enriched uranium for medical isotope production. The Secretarial Determination covers leases of up to the equivalent of 500 kilograms of LEU at up to 19.75 percent uranium-235 per year for two years following approval of the determination to support molybdenum-99 producers. The Secretary based his conclusion on the Department's “Analysis of Potential Impacts of Uranium Transfers on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries,” which is incorporated into the determination. The Secretary considered,
Issued in Washington, DC.
Set forth below is the full text of the Secretarial Determination.
I determine that the lease of up to the equivalent of 500 kgU of 19.75%-assay low enriched uranium per calendar year to support the development and establishment of molybdenum-99 production capabilities will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry. I base my conclusions on the Department's “Analysis of Potential Impacts of Uranium Transfers on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries,” which is incorporated herein. As explained in that document, I have considered,
DOE manages its excess uranium inventory in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011
The USEC Privatization Act (Pub. L. 104-134, 42 U.S.C. 2297h
The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-239, Division C, Title XXXI, Subtitle F, 42 U.S.C. 2065, “AMIPA”) directs the Department to establish a program to lease LEU for irradiation to produce molybdenum-99 in the United States without the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU). This Uranium Lease and Take Back (ULTB) program will involve providing high-assay LEU (LEU enriched above 5 wt-%, but below 20 wt-% of U-235) to parties engaged in commercial production of molybdenum-99 in the United States for medical uses. As directed in AMIPA, the leased material will be used as either driver fuel for reactors employed in medical isotope production, as target material for irradiation and extraction of molybdenum-99, or both. The exact uses and designs vary by producer, but fission-based production usually involves fabrication of uranium targets for irradiation in a reactor, followed by chemical processing to extract the Mo-99 for packaging into a generator and delivery to a radiopharmacy.
The materials considered in this analysis will be provided during calendar years 2016 and 2017 and will consist of no more than 500 kgU enriched over 5 and up to 19.75 wt-% of the isotope U-235 in any calendar year.
This analysis evaluates two forecasts: One reflecting the state of the domestic uranium industries if DOE goes forward with these transactions, and one reflecting the state of the domestic uranium industries if DOE does not go forward with them. DOE compares these two forecasts to determine the relevant impacts on the domestic uranium industries. In conducting this comparison, DOE has developed a set of factors that this analysis considers in assessing whether DOE's uranium transfers will have an “adverse material impact” on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry:
While no single factor is dispositive of the issue, DOE believes that these factors are representative of the types of impacts that the proposed leases may have on the domestic uranium industries. Not every factor will necessarily be relevant on a given occasion or to a particular industry; DOE intends this list of factors only as a guide to its analysis.
There is currently no commercial supplier of high-assay LEU on the open market. Modern enrichment facilities are technologically able to produce such materials. However, due to the economics of enrichment, owners and operators of such enrichment facilities have chosen not to pursue enrichment of high-assay LEU. Doing so would entail investment both for tooling up for higher enrichment and for regulatory licensing (chiefly from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Commercial power market projections of demand in the nuclear medicine industry for LEU in future years range from tens to hundreds of kilograms. Compared to the demand of the commercial power market, which requires thousands of metric tons of enriched uranium and associated conversion services, the production of small amounts of high-assay material is not likely to be economically viable for private industry. Additionally, with the closing of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in 2013, the only remaining operational uranium enrichment facility in the U.S. is that operated by Louisiana Energy Services, LLC, which is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to possess uranium only up to 5 wt-% U-235,
There is currently no foreign commercial producer or supplier of high-assay low enriched uranium for use in domestic research reactors or medical isotope production applications. The high-assay LEU that is produced internationally, for example to convert Russian-supplied reactors from highly enriched uranium (HEU) cores, is noncommercially produced by state-owned enterprises for official purposes via downblending excess HEU.
It is also not feasible for commercial molybdenum-99 producers to use commercial available assays of LEU (
Given the lack of domestic commercial production or supply of such materials and challenges to using or finding an alternative supply, an analysis of the impact of the proposed leases based on an assessment of the six factors listed in Section II is straightforward. Since the DOE material would not supplant material available on the commercial market, it would not displace primary production of uranium concentrates, conversion services, or
Even if the DOE leases would displace production among the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry, the amount would be so small that the effects would be minimal. With respect to the three uranium industries, to produce the amount of LEU in the proposed leases from primary production would require about 50,000 pounds of uranium concentrates (U
Given how small these DOE leases would be compared to global reactor requirements, domestic production, and imports from the Russian Federation under the Suspension Agreement, DOE concludes that leases at this level would have almost no impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry with respect to any of the six factors listed in Section II.
DOE recently issued a determination that certain transfers of natural uranium in exchange for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and of LEU in exchange for downblending services will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industries. The analysis supporting that determination also considered various other past transfers, the uranium from which may still be affecting markets, and the impacts of the Russian HEU Agreement and Suspension Agreement (80 FR 26,366 at 26,385). DOE also issued a determination that the transfer of up to the equivalent of 25 kgU of 19.75% assay LEU per calendar year to support the development and demonstration of molybdenum-99 production capabilities will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industries (80 FR 65,727). In reaching the conclusion that leases of up to 500 kgU per year of high-assay LEU will have a minimal impact on the domestic uranium industries, DOE takes account of the various transfers assessed for its recent determinations.
For the reasons discussed above, these leases will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry, taking into account the Russian HEU Agreement and Suspension Agreement.
On November 22, 2010, Gresham Municipal Utilities, licensee for the Gresham Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Gresham Hydroelectric Project is located on the Red River in Shawano County, Wisconsin.
The license for Project No. 2484 was issued for a period ending December 31, 2015. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2484 is issued to the licensee for a period effective January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before December 31, 2016, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Gresham Municipal Utilities is authorized to continue operation of the Gresham Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On October 16, 2015, AS Clock Tower Owner, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mill and Main Hydroelectric Project (Mill and Main Project) to be located on the Assabet River, near Maynard, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 9.5-foot-high, 170-foot-long granite block Ben Smith dam; (2) the existing 18.75-acre Ben Smith dam impoundment with a storage capacity of 475 acre-feet and a normal water surface elevation of 177 feet above mean sea level (msl); (3) an existing 1,600-foot-long power canal leading to an existing gatehouse at the upstream end of the existing 18.3-acre Mill Pond impoundment with a storage capacity of 130 acre-feet and a normal water surface elevation of 176 feet msl; (4) the existing masonry Mill Pond dam; (5) an existing 7-foot-diameter, 49-foot-long penstock; (6) an existing masonry powerhouse containing one turbine-generator unit with an installed capacity of 290-kilowatts; (7) two 300-foot-long masonry tailraces; (8) an existing 480-volt transmission line and a 13.8 kV step-up transformer to interconnect the project with the Clock Tower Place; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Mill and Main Project would be about 1,241 megawatt-hours. The existing Ben Smith and Mill dams and appurtenant works are owned by AS Clock Tower Owner, LLC.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on January 4, 2016, Hafslund Energy Trading L.L.C. submitted its compliance filing to Order on Rehearing of Opinion No. 536.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 25, 2016.
Take notice that on January 4, 2016, Illinova Energy Partners, Inc. submitted its Compliance Filing to Order on Rehearing of Opinion No. 536.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 25, 2016.
Take notice that during the month of December 2015, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR § 366.7(a).
With respect to an order issued by the Commission on January 6, 2016 in the above-captioned docket,
Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of teleconference and face-to-face meetings.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously announced, holds teleconference meetings the third Wednesday of each month at 1:00 p.m. ET and two face-to-face meetings each calendar year. For 2016, teleconference only meetings will be February 17, March 16, April 20, May 18, June 15, July 20, September 21, October 19, November 16, and December 21 to discuss the ideas and views presented at the previous ELAB meetings, as well as new business. Items to be discussed by ELAB over these coming meetings include: (1) Issues in continuing the expansion of national environmental accreditation; (2) ELAB's support to the Agency's on issues relating to measurement and monitoring for all programs; and (3) follow-up on some of ELAB's past recommendations and issues. In addition to these teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting their two face-to-face meetings with teleconference line also available on January 25, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma at 1:30 p.m. (CT) and on August 8, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency Orange County in Orange County, CA at 1:00 p.m. (PT).
Written comments on laboratory accreditation issues and/or environmental monitoring or measurement issues are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Lara P. Phelps, Designated Federal Officer, US EPA (E243-05), 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or emailed to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits (EPA ICR No. 1573.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0009), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0809, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Peggy Vyas, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before February 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0506, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from November 2, 2015 to November 30, 2015, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 54 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the six TMEs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the TME, the date the TME was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the TME, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the TME, and the chemical identity.
For the 32 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types (EPA ICR No. 1572.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0050), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0808, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Norma Abdul-Malik, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8753; fax number: 703-308-8617; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
With each information collection covered in this ICR, the EPA is aiding the goal of complying with its statutory mandate under RCRA to develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, to protect human health and the environment. Without the information collection, the agency cannot assure that the facilities are designed and operated properly.
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
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
2.
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), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 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 collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, 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.
Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report:
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Jessica Lyon (202-326-2344) or Kristin Madigan (202-326-3560), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 5, 2016), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 4, 2016. Write “Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3161” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3161” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Henry Schein”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
Henry Schein develops and sells dental practice management software, including the Dentrix G5 office management software for dental practices. The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that Henry Schein violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by making false representations to consumers from January 2012 through January 2014 about the security of its Dentrix G5 software. Specifically, the Commission's proposed complaint alleges that Henry Schein falsely represented that Dentrix G5 provides industry-standard encryption of patient data and helps dentists meet the security requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that, in truth and in fact, Dentrix G5 used technology that was less secure than industry-standard encryption, and was not capable of helping dentists protect patient data as required by HIPAA.
The proposed order contains provisions designed to prevent Henry Schein from engaging in the same or similar acts or practices in the future.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Henry Schein from misrepresenting: (A) Whether or to what extent any product or service designed to collect or store personal information offers industry-standard encryption; (B) the ability of the product or service to help customers meet regulatory obligations related to privacy or security; or (C) the extent to which a product or service maintains the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information.
Part II of the proposed order requires Henry Schein to notify affected customers that Dentrix G5 uses a less complex encryption algorithm to protect patient data than Advanced Encryption Standard, which is recommended as an industry standard by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Part II provides for individual notice letters to affected customers and the creation of a toll-free telephone number and email address dedicated to responding to inquiries about the order.
Parts III through V of the proposed order require Henry Schein to pay $250,000 into a fund to be administered by the Commission. If the Commission decides that direct redress to affected customers is impracticable or money remains after redress is completed, the Commission may apply any remaining money for such other relief (including consumer information remedies) as it determines is reasonably related to Henry Schein's practices alleged in the proposed complaint. Any money not used is to be deposited to the U.S. Treasury.
Parts VI, VII, and IX of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VI requires that for five (5) years after the last date of dissemination of any representation covered by the proposed order, Henry Schein will maintain and upon request make available certain materials, including: (A) All advertisements and promotional materials containing the representation; (B) all materials that were relied upon in disseminating the representation; and (C) all tests, reports, studies, surveys, demonstrations, or other evidence in its possession or control that contradict, qualify, or call into question the representation, or the basis relied upon for the representation. Part VII is an order distribution provision that requires Henry Schein to provide the order to current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers, as well as current and future employees having managerial responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order. Part IX requires Henry Schein to submit a compliance report within sixty (60) days after service of the order, and additional compliance reports within ten (10) days of written notice from the Commission. Part VIII of the proposed order requires Henry Schein to notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any corporate changes that may affect compliance obligations. Part X is a provision “sunsetting” the order after 20 years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning North Carolina sales tax certification. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before February 11, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification” on your attached document.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification.
Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-969-7226 or email
The North Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act authorizes counties and incorporated cities and towns to obtain each year, from the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of North Carolina, a refund of sales and use taxes indirectly paid on building materials, supplies, fixtures, and equipment that become a part of or are annexed to any building or structure in North Carolina.
However, to substantiate a refund claim for sales or use taxes paid on purchases of building materials, supplies, fixtures, or equipment by a contractor, the Government must secure from the contractor certified statements setting forth the cost of the property purchased from each vendor and the amount of sales or use taxes paid. Similar certified statements by subcontractors must be obtained by the general contractor and furnished to the Government. The information is used as evidence to establish exemption from State and local taxes.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0059, North Carolina Sales Tax Certification, in all correspondence.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Employer Perspective of an Insurer-Sponsored Wellness Grant—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91-596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes to conduct a study among employers in Ohio insured by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (OHBWC) to: (1) Assess the effectiveness and cost-benefit of an intervention that funds workplace wellness programs and (2) understand the impact of integrating of wellness with traditional occupational safety and health (OSH) programs.
Work-related injuries and illnesses are common among US workers and result in pain, disability, and substantial cost to workers and employers. A recent, comprehensive analysis of the economic burden of work-related injuries and illnesses estimated that in 2007, alone, medical and indirect costs for work-related injuries and illnesses were $250 billion. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 4,609 occupational fatalities in 2011 and approximately 2 million work-related injuries and illnesses that involved some lost work in 2010.
Workers' health is affected not only by workplace safety and health hazards but also workers' own health behaviors. Reflecting this, two different, yet, complementary approaches exist in the workplace: OSH programs and wellness programs. Both types of programs aim to improve worker health and reduce costs to employers, workers' compensation (WC) insurers, and society. Since 2004, NIOSH has advocated an approach that coordinates wellness programs with OSH programs because emerging evidence suggests that integrating these two fields may have a synergistic effect on worker safety and health.
NIOSH has established an intramural program for protecting and promoting Total Worker Health
There is a need for research to demonstrate a `business case' for both wellness programs and integrated OSH-wellness programs and identify OSH organizational and management policies, programs and practices that effectively reduce work-related injuries, illnesses, disabilities and WC costs. To date, small employers have been largely ignored in these areas and many studies have focused on the manufacturing industry. Real-world examples of effective interventions that apply to employers of all sizes and industries will ultimately improve workers' health and safety.
For the current study, NIOSH and OHBWC are collaborating on a project to determine the effectiveness and economic return of the Workplace Wellness Grant Program (WWGP) and to understand the impact of integrating of wellness with traditional OSH programs. In early 2012 OHBWC took steps to integrate wellness and OSH programs by launching the WWGP, in which an estimated 400 (currently 321) employers and 13,000 employees will be provided a total of $4 million in funds over four years to implement wellness programs.
The majority of the study aims will be accomplished through secondary analysis of pre- and post-intervention data being collected by OHBWC and shared with NIOSH. For the overall study, data for participating employers will include aggregate health risk appraisal data; aggregate biometric data; turnover data; health care utilization costs; information about occupational safety and health, wellness, and integrated occupational safety and health-wellness program elements; OHBWC WWGP expense records; yearly WC claims and cost data; data that details employer participation in other OHBWC programs; industry codes, and employer size. For the annual case study verification interviews, a sample of no more than 50 employers will be selected among grantees for 1-2 brief phone calls to confirm responses on an annual survey administered by OHBWC. Therefore, up to 100 key informants may be contacted if we do not speak to the same person each time, as reflected in the Estimated Annualized Burden table below.
In addition, NIOSH will supplement the cost data extracted from existing sources with information collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with no more than 25, randomly selected, participating employers. Data gathered from these employer interviews are critical to compute ratios of total savings to total costs for the grant-supported wellness programs from the perspective of the participating employers.
NIOSH will ask key informant from the employer a series of questions that will be used to estimate direct and indirect costs that were not directly funded by the WWGP during and after the grant funding period. This will be accomplished by collecting as detailed information as possible about the employer's wellness program and occupational and safety program costs. Topics will include questions about: The timeline and confirmation of grant funding, non-grant funds used for wellness program costs after receiving the first grant, and other questions about their wellness program.
The results of these interview-supplemented case studies will be used to estimate the proportion by which total employer costs exceed the cost of the primary wellness program vendor, as well as the proportion of these costs attributable to establishing the program in the first year versus operating the program in subsequent years. These estimates will be applied to generate total employer costs for all of the WWGP recipients, with sensitivity analysis based on the observed
If the WWGP is effective at improving worker health, reducing WC claims and demonstrating a positive economic return, then other employers and insurance carriers may develop similar programs and drive the optimization of integrated OSH-wellness approaches. NIOSH expects to complete data collection in 2017. It is estimated that a maximum of 100 individuals will be interviewed (up to 50 for the semi-structured economic interviews and up to 100 for the annual case study verification interviews). The hour-burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and participating in the interview. There are no costs to interviewees other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 150.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Next Generation Sequencing-Based Oncology Panels.” The purpose of this workshop is to obtain feedback on analytical and clinical validation approaches for next generation sequencing (NGS)-based oncology panels. Comments and suggestions generated through this workshop will help guide the development of appropriate regulatory standards for evaluation of NGS-based oncology panels in cancer patient management.
The public workshop will be held on February 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by March 28, 2016.
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 B and C (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
Jennifer Dickey, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 5648, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5028,
A number of oncology therapeutic products have been approved with corresponding companion diagnostics (Ref. 1). To date, approved companion diagnostic assays assess a single analyte or prespecified mutations associated with therapeutic response; however, NGS technology can interrogate a patient's tumor specimen for numerous biomarkers concurrently, introducing challenges to the current companion diagnostic paradigm. Additionally, NGS tumor panels are increasingly employed for use in similar oncology applications because the technology can be used to screen a cancer patient's specimen for many relevant mutations simultaneously.
FDA is holding this public workshop to solicit input from external stakeholders on approaches to establish performance characteristics of NGS-based oncology panels that include variants that are intended to be used as companion diagnostics, as well as other variants that may be used for alternative therapeutic management of patients who have already been considered for all appropriate therapies. The Agency is requesting public input on strategies for establishing performance characteristics for NGS-based oncology panels for rare variants across tumor types, follow-on companion diagnostic claims, and post-approval assay modifications. Further details to be considered and discussed at the workshop will be outlined in a discussion paper that will be posted publicly and available prior to the workshop at the following site:
This public workshop will consist of brief presentations to provide information to frame the goals of the workshop and interactive discussions via several panel sessions. Following the presentations, there will be a moderated discussion where speakers and additional panelists will be asked to provide their individual perspectives. The presentations and discussions will focus on several topics, including a description of a hypothetical NGS-based oncology panel test and its general intended use; considerations for pre-analytical and quality metric approaches; challenges in analytical validation and the potential for development of a flexible approach for post-approval assay modifications; and the framework for clinical and follow-on companion diagnostic claims. In advance of the meeting, FDA plans to post a discussion paper outlining FDA's current thinking for NGS-based oncology panels and the issues for discussion at the workshop at
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, phone 301-796-5661, email:
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. Please refer to FDA's Web site on companion diagnostics, available at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by March 14, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This is a request for an extension of OMB approval for the information collection requirements contained in FDA's regulations for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco containing nicotine. The regulations that are codified at 21 CFR part 1140 are authorized by section 102 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31). Section 102 of the Tobacco Control Act required FDA to publish a final rule regarding cigarettes and smokeless tobacco identical in its provisions to the regulation issued by FDA in 1996 (61 FR 44396, August 28, 1996), with certain specified exceptions including that subpart C (which included § 897.24) and § 897.32(c) be removed from the reissued rule (section 102(a)(2)(B)). The reissued final rule was published in the
This collection includes reporting information requirements for § 1140.30 which directs persons to notify FDA if they intend to use a form of advertising that is not addressed in the regulations. The requirements are as follows:
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden hour estimates for this collection of information were based on industry-prepared data and information regarding cigarette and smokeless tobacco product advertising expenditures.
Section 1140.30 requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers: (1) To observe certain format and content requirements for labeling and advertising, and (2) to notify FDA if they intend to use an advertising medium that is not listed in the regulations. The concept of permitted advertising in § 1140.30 is sufficiently broad to encompass most forms of advertising. FDA estimates that approximately 300 respondents will submit an annual notice of alternative advertising, and the Agency has estimated it should take 1 hour to provide such notice. Therefore, FDA estimates that the total time required for this collection of information is 300 hours.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Shelley B. Gordon, Senior Public Health Analyst, Health Resources and Services Administration, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Division of Policy and Data, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 09N154, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: 301-443-9684, Fax: 301-443-3343, and/or email:
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than March 14, 2016.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
The TRCs currently report on existing performance data elements using PIMs. The current PIMs will continue to be used to report on new measures. The performance measures are designed to assess how the TRC program is meeting its goals to:
Additionally, the PIMs tool allows OAT to:
• Fulfill obligations for GPRA and Program Assessment Rating Tool requirements and to report to Congress the value added from the TRC Grant Program;
• Justify budget requests;
• Collect uniform, consistent data which enables OAT to monitor programs;
• Provide guidance to grantees on important indicators to track over time
• Measure performance relative to the mission of OAT/HRSA as well as individual goals and objectives of the program;
• Identify topics of interest for future special studies; and
• Identify changes in healthcare needs within rural communities, allowing programs to shift focus in order to meet those needs.
This revised request proposes changes to existing measures. After compiling data from the previous tool over the last 3 years, the Office conducted an analysis of the data and compared the findings with the program needs. Based on the findings, the measures were revised to better capture information necessary to measure the effectiveness of the program.
Likely Respondents: The likely respondents will be telehealth associations, telehealth providers, rural health providers, clinicians that deliver services via telehealth, technical assistance providers, research organizations, and academic medical centers.
HRSA 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.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the first meeting date for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) on Monday, February 1, 2016.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 1, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and is open to the public.
The meeting will be held in Room 5051 of the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.
The public may attend the meeting in-person or listen via audio teleconference. Space is limited and registration is
Name.
Company name.
Postal address.
Email address.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Scott R. Smith, no later than January 22, 2016 at the contact information listed below.
Scott R. Smith, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Health Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-6870.
The Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) is authorized by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, 42 U.S.C. 1395ee. This Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Committee is to review physician-focused payment model proposals and prepare recommendations regarding whether such models meet criteria that will be established through rulemaking by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary). The Committee is composed of 11 members appointed by the Comptroller General with staggering terms of 1, 2, and 3 years as specified in the authorizing legislation.
The Committee will receive information about MACRA
The first meeting (February 1, 2016) is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
The following are the security and building guidelines:
Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.
Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.
Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.
All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.
All items brought into the Cohen Building including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.
The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.
Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.
The Secretary's Charter for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee is available on the ASPE Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: February 8, 2016 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Open: February 9, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: February 8, 2016, 3:00 p.m. to adjournment.
Open: February 9, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to adjournment.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, hotel, and airport shuttles, will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) is extending the comment period for responses to its Request for Information (RFI), published in Vol. 80, No. 195, of the
Specific questions about this notice should be sent via email to:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 18 months. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 205.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.
The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2016 minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers.
The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Marine employers must submit their 2015 Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March 15, 2016.
Annual MIS reports may be submitted by electronic submission to the following Internet address:
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Patrick Mannion, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-372-1033.
The Coast Guard requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers on inspected and uninspected vessels in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230. Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year, and submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast Guard in an annual MIS report.
Each year, the Coast Guard will publish a notice reporting the results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS data and the minimum annual percentage rate for
The Coast Guard announces that the minimum random drug testing rate for calendar year 2016 is 25 percent. The Coast Guard may increase this rate if MIS data indicates a qualitative deficiency of reported data or the positive random testing rate is greater than 1.0 percent in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(f)(2). MIS data for 2015 indicates that the positive rate is less than one percent industry-wide (0.87 percent).
For 2016, the minimum random drug testing rate will continue at 25 percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., to investigate the operational use of broadband cellular technology, including equipment that may be integrated into the National Public Safety Broadband Communication Band 14 LTE Network (commonly called FirstNet). The research also includes tactical employment of Multiple User Objective System (MUOS) Satellite Communications and common operational picture applications to establish Coast Guard network centric operations. A Pilot Demonstration schedule has been proposed in which General Dynamics will provide and install their Band 14 LTE Network, GeoSuite Server Common Operational Picture application, Satcom radios, smart phones, vehicle routers, modems, and antennas suitable for installation on select Coast Guard surface vessels, boarding teams, command center and ground vehicles. LTE Network base station radios will be placed on an existing CG-owned tower or a deployable equivalent. The Coast Guard Research and Development Center (R&D Center) will prepare a Pilot Demonstration Assessment Plan and a Coast Guard Sector will operate the equipment for exploratory development over a six-month period to collect information on suitability, reliability, maintenance requirements, and human systems interoperability. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., the agency is soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants to propose similar CRADAs.
Comments must be submitted to the online docket via
Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast Guard (see
Submit comments online at
If you have questions on this notice or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact Wayne Buchanan, Project Official, C4ISR Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860-271-2759, email
We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan to respond to comments in the
Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-1120 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard (see
CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).
CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.
Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal participant will collect information/data for performance, reliability, maintenance requirements, human systems integration and other data on LTE broadband and MUOS communications technologies. After an initial installation and training, the Coast Guard plans to evaluate designated platforms outfitted
We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Develop the Demonstration Pilot Assessment Plan to meet the objectives of the CRADA with a diverse set of real-life mission scenarios.
(2) Provide the pilot demonstration range and range support in and around a Coast Guard Sector.
(3) Evaluate utility of a Coast Guard tower for installation of the LTE base station radios or identify an alternative site to deploy a mobile tower.
(4) Coordinate Pilot demonstration network connectivity to desired CG networks and systems and seek all spectra approvals.
(5) Collaborate with non-Federal partner to prepare demonstration documentation including equipment assessments, final report(s), and briefings.
We anticipate that the non-Federal participant's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Assist the R&D Center in the development and drafting of all CRADA documents, including the pilot demonstration assessment plan, equipment assessments, final report(s), and briefings.
(2) Provide and maintain the LTE Band 14 Network and MUOS communications equipment including radios, handsets, vehicle routers, and modems, to ensure the network is accessible.
(3) Secure, with R&D Center assistance, Special Temporary Authority (STA) to implement the Pilot using Band 14 spectrum.
(4) Provide technical support, training and maintenance throughout the period of performance to ensure maximum availability and utility of the networks.
The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
(1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
(2) How well they address the following criteria:
(a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and
(b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.
Currently, the Coast Guard is considering General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that General Dynamics has demonstrated its technical ability as the developer, manufacturer, and integrator of LTE Band 14 Network equipment and MUOS Satcom technologies. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
This is a technology assessment effort. The goal for the Coast Guard of this CRADA is to better understand the advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues associated with Band 14 LTE broadband wireless communications and MUOS satellite communications. Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S. This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. 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.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Oil and Gas Sub-Group is scheduled to meet as indicated below.
The Southwest RAC Oil and Gas Sub-Group will hold meetings on February 11, 2016, in Durango and Mancos, Colorado, as well as March 16, 2016, in Cortez and Hesperus, Colorado.
The February 11 Southwest RAC Oil and Gas Sub-Group meetings will be from 10 a.m. to approximately 12 p.m. at the La Plata County Fairgrounds, 2500 Main Ave., Durango, Colorado; and from 6 p.m. to approximately 8 p.m. at the Mancos School, 395 W. Grand Ave., Mancos, Colorado. The meetings have identical agendas. There will be a public comment period regarding matters on the agenda at 11:30 a.m. in Durango and 7:30 p.m. in Mancos.
The March 16 Southwest RAC Oil and Gas sub-group meetings will be from 10 a.m. to approximately 12 p.m. at the Montezuma County Annex, 107 N. Chestnut St., Cortez, Colorado; and from 6 p.m. to approximately 8 p.m. at the Fort Lewis Mesa Elementary School, 11274 Colorado Hwy. 140, Hesperus, Colorado. These meetings also have identical agendas. There will be a public comment period regarding matters on the agenda at 11:30 a.m. in Cortez and 7:30 p.m. in Hesperus.
Barbara Sharrow, BLM Southwest Acting District Manager, 970-240-5300; or Shannon Borders, Public Affairs Specialist, 970-240-5300; 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401. 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, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Southwest RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado. The Southwest RAC Oil and Gas Sub-Group identifies key priorities for the Southwest RAC to recommend to the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. At these meetings, the sub-group will continue to discuss the BLM's proposed Master Leasing Plan in western La Plata and eastern Montezuma counties. The meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the sub-group. The meetings will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 8, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Server Technology, Inc. of Reno, Nevada. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain rack mountable power distribution units by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,521 (“the `521 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,400,493 (“the `493 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,414,329 (“the `329 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,447,002 (“the `002 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,430 (“the `430 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,706,134 (“the `134 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,541,906 (“the `906 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,541,907 (“the `907 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,601,291 (“the `291 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,694,272 (“the `272 patent”), and that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain rack mountable power distribution units by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 16, 17, 19-23, 31, and 32-33 of the `521 patent; claims 1, 2-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 18-21 of the `493 patent; claims 1, 2-5, 10, 11-14, 19, and 20-21 of the `329 patent; claims 1, 2-4, 7-10, 12-14, 16, and 17 of the `002 patent; claims 1, 3-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, and 31 of the `430 patent; claims 1, 2-6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14-16, 19-21, and 22 of the `134 patent; claims 1, 2-4, and 6-9 of the `906 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-8, 9, 10, 12-16, 17, 18-22, 23, and 24-27 of the `907 patent; claims 1, 2-6, 7, 8-9, 13, and 18 of the `291 patent; claims 1, 2-6, 10-11, and 19 of the `272 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) has issued a final initial determination on December 22, 2015 and recommended determination on remedy and bonding on January 5, 2016.
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order against certain graphics processing chips, systems on a chip, and products containing the same, imported by respondents; and a cease and desist order against respondents. The respondents are NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp. of New Taipei, Taiwan; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp. of City of Industry, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Elitegroup Computer Systems, Inc. of Newark, California; EVGA Corp. of Brea, California; Fuhu, Inc. of El Segundo, California; Jaton Corp. of Fremont, California; Mad Catz, Inc. of San Diego, California; OUYA, Inc. of Santa Monica, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, Taiwan; Toradex, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; and ZOTAC USA, Inc. of Chino, California.
This notice is soliciting public interest comments only from the public. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4) within 30 days from service of the recommended determination.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further developing the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on January 5, 2016. Comments should address whether the issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order 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 recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended 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 recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on
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, 210.46, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.46, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 14, 2016.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.
Affected public (Other): None.
Abstract: This information collection permits the DEA to monitor the volume and availability of domestically manufactured listed chemicals. These listed chemicals may be subject to diversion for the illicit production of controlled substances. This information is required by law.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 14, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
It is estimated that 150 respondents annually will complete the Monitoring Request for Documentation at 3 hours per respondent.
(6)
There are an estimated 450 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.
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.
Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 14, 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 Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Abstract: The purpose of this project is to improve the practice of community policing throughout the United States by supporting the development of a series of tools that will allow law enforcement agencies to gain better insight into the depth and breadth of their community policing activities.
(5)
It is estimated that approximately 20,964 respondents will respond with an average of 15 minutes per response.
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) gives notice that on January 11, 2016, Submission #2015-04 regarding Mexico was accepted for review pursuant to Article 16(3) of the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).
On November 12, 2015, the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770, the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, and the Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research, provided a submission to OTLA, through Change to Win, alleging violations of the NAALC by the Government of Mexico (GOM). U.S. Submission #2015-04 alleges that the GOM has failed to meet its obligations under the NAALC, including to effectively enforce its labor laws with respect to freedom of association, collective bargaining, discrimination, minimum labor standards, occupational safety and health, and workers' compensation and to ensure that its labor law proceedings are fair, equitable, and transparent.
OTLA's decision to accept the submission for review is not intended to indicate any determination as to the validity or accuracy of the allegations contained in the submission. The objective of the review will be to gather information so that OTLA can better understand the allegations contained in the submission and publicly report on the issues raised therein in light of the GOM's obligations under the NAALC. As set out in the Procedural Guidelines (published as 71 FR 76691 (2006)), OTLA will complete the review and issue a public report to the Secretary of Labor within 180 days of this acceptance, unless circumstances, as determined by OTLA, require an extension of time.
Matthew Levin, Director, OTLA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-5303, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-4900. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Article 16(3) of the NAALC requires that each Party's National Administrative Office provide for the submission and receipt of public communications (“submissions”) regarding labor law matters arising in the territory of another Party and review those submissions in accordance with domestic procedures. A
The Procedural Guidelines specify that OTLA shall consider six factors, to the extent that they are relevant, in determining whether to accept a submission for review:
1. Whether the submission raises issues relevant to any matter arising under a labor chapter or the NAALC;
2. Whether a review would further the objectives of a labor chapter or the NAALC;
3. Whether the submission clearly identifies the person filing the submission, is signed and dated, and is sufficiently specific to determine the nature of the request and permit an appropriate review;
4. Whether the statements contained in the submission, if substantiated, would constitute a failure of the other Party to comply with its obligations or commitments under a labor chapter or the NAALC;
5. Whether the statements contained in the submission or available information demonstrate that appropriate relief has been sought under the domestic laws of the other Party, or that the matter or a related matter is pending before an international body; and
6. Whether the submission is substantially similar to a recent submission and significant, new information has been furnished that would substantially differentiate the submission from the one previously filed.
U.S. Submission #2015-04 alleges that the GOM has failed to meet its obligations under the NAALC, including to effectively enforce its labor laws with respect to freedom of association, collective bargaining, discrimination, minimum labor standards, occupational safety and health, and workers' compensation and to ensure that its labor law proceedings are fair, equitable, and transparent.
In determining whether to accept the submission, OTLA considered the statements in the submission in light of the relevant factors identified in the Procedural Guidelines. The submission raises issues relevant to multiple NAALC Labor Principles. The submission clearly identifies the submitters, is signed and dated, and is sufficiently specific to determine the nature of the request and permit an appropriate review. The submission raises pertinent issues that could further the objectives of the NAALC and that could, if substantiated, constitute a failure of the GOM to comply with its obligations under the NAALC. The submitters provided both general information and specific worker interview results related to alleged protection contracts and a description of methodology and efforts to gain access to registered collective bargaining agreements through Web sites and GOM officials. The submission notes that
OTLA's decision to accept the submission for review is not intended to indicate any determination as to the validity or accuracy of the allegations contained in the submission. The objective of the review will be to gather information so that OTLA can better understand the allegations contained in the submission and to publicly report on the issues raised therein. As set out in the Procedural Guidelines, OTLA will complete the review and issue a public report to the Secretary of Labor within 180 days, unless circumstances, as determined by OTLA, require an extension of time. The public report will include a summary of the review process, as well as any findings and recommendations.
Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the Evaluation of the Disability Employment Initiative Round 5 and Future Rounds. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before February 11, 2016.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods: Email:
Cherise Hunter by telephone at 202-693-4931 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The proposed information collection activities described in this notice will provide data for an impact and implementation evaluation of the Disability Employment Initiative Round 5 and future rounds (DEI R5FR). The DEI was first funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) in 2010. DEI was designed to improve educational, training and employment opportunities and outcomes of youth and adults with disabilities who are unemployed, underemployed and/or receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), by refining and expanding already identified successful public workforce strategies; improving coordination and collaboration among employment and training and asset development programs implemented at state and local levels, including the expansion of the public workforce investment system's capacity to serve as Ticket to Work (TTW) Employment Networks (ENs) under the Social Security Administration's (SSA) TTW Program; and build effective community partnerships that leverage public and private resources to better serve individuals with disabilities and improve employment outcomes.
Thirty-one grants in Rounds 1-4 were awarded from September 2010 to September 2014 to state government agencies which distributed the funds to their local workforce investment areas' (LWIAs) American Job Centers (AJCs) to implement these activities. In 2014, ETA and ODEP provided $14,837,785 to six Round 5 grantees. Round 6 grantees were awarded cooperative agreements in October 2015. Since 2010, the Department of Labor has awarded over $95 million in grants to state workforce agencies. DEI Rounds 1-4 focused on the implementation of strategic service delivery strategies including integrated resource teams, blending and braiding of resources, use of the Guideposts for Success (youth grantees only), customized employment, self-employment and asset development strategies. R5FR will add career pathways to the DEI service package.
The DEI R5FR impact study will use two distinct quasi-experimental design (QED) study designs to determine the impact of DEI interventions on participant outcomes. The first study design is a matched comparison group design, with the treatment and comparison conditions established at the LWIA level. The second design will match similar participants
This
(1) Site visit/interviews protocols. Site visits will occur at three points in time and will collect information on the current status at baseline and change in grantees' workforce development system at follow-up; grantee customer characteristics; implementation of the grant requirements and strategies; program implementation challenges; and system change.
(2) Participant tracking system. For the purposes of tracking individual DEI Round 5 participants and collecting information that is not collected by Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) or Wagner-Peyser (W-P), a Participant Tracking System (PTS) that is independent of the WIASRD and W-P systems will be used. The PTS will provide DEI customer tracking information from participating
(3) Survey on Disability Type, Activities of Daily Living and Selected Outcomes Related to Career Pathways will provide a descriptive picture of the range of disabilities that participants disclose, but will also provide a more accurate match across treatment and comparison groups in both impact analyses in terms of disability type and severity. It will also provide more accurate information on outcomes, particularly on academic outcomes that are currently difficult to access through existing administrative databases.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the evaluation of DEI R5FR. DOL is particularly interested in comments that do the following:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (for example, permitting electronic submissions of responses).
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.
Notice of meeting.
The National Museum and Library Services Board, which advises the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services in awarding national awards and medals, will meet by teleconference on February 18, 2016, to review nominations for the 2016 National Medal for Museum and Library Service.
Thursday, February 18, 2016, at 1 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4676.
Closed. The meeting will be closed pursuant to subsections (c)(4) and (c)(9) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Board will consider information that may disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.
Katherine Maas, Program Specialist, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: (202) 653-4798.
Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, and in accordance with its mandate to review the technical and scientific validity of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities related to implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet in Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 17, 2016, to review DOE activities related to extended storage and transportation of high burnup spent nuclear fuel (HBF). The focus of the meeting will be DOE research related to determining the performance and potential degradation of HBF during storage and transportation, including storage at a nuclear utility site and subsequent transportation to a geologic repository, as well as the potential effects of a second period of extended storage, possibly at an interim storage site, followed by transportation to a geologic repository.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) of 1987 charges the Board with performing an ongoing and independent evaluation of the technical and scientific validity of
The meeting will be held at the Knoxville Marriott, 501 E. Hill Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37915; Tel. 865-637-1234; Fax 865-637-1193. A block of rooms has been reserved for meeting attendees at a group rate of $119.95 per night, single/double occupancy. Reservations may be made online at:
The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, and is scheduled to adjourn at 5:15 p.m. Among the topics that will be discussed by DOE representatives and contractors at the meeting are:
• DOE research to determine the performance of HBF during transportation, including vibration testing at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and both instrumented road testing and shaker-table testing being performed by Sandia National Laboratories. Discussion will focus on how the three studies complement each other to support understanding and modeling of the performance of HBF during transportation.
• Performance of HBF under transportation accident conditions, including an evaluation of the outcome of the American Society for Testing and Materials workshop held in August 2014 on hydride reorientation and an update on the results of research by Argonne National Laboratory related to determining the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature of HBF cladding.
• Status of the Cask Demonstration Program investigating the degradation of HBF and dry cask storage systems during extended dry storage. Data to be obtained from examination of sister rods removed from the HBF loaded into the demonstration cask and the effectiveness of the drying procedure will be discussed.
A detailed meeting agenda will be available on the Board's Web site at
The meeting will be open to the public. Opportunities for public comment will be provided before the lunch break and at the end of the day. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the “Public Comment Register” at the check-in table. Depending on the number of people who sign up to speak, it may be necessary to set a time limit on individual remarks. However, written comments of any length may be submitted. All comments received in writing will be included in the record of the meeting posted on the Board's Web site. The meeting will also be webcast at:
Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the Board's Web site no later than March 5, 2016. Copies of the transcripts will also be available by electronic transmission, on computer disk, or in paper format, and may be requested from Davonya Barnes.
The Board was established in the NWPAA as an independent federal agency in the Executive Branch to review the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to provide objective expert advice to Congress and the Secretary of Energy on technical and scientific issues related to SNF and HLW management and disposal. Board members are experts in their fields and are appointed to the Board by the President from a list of candidates submitted by the National Academy of Sciences. The Board reports its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. All Board reports, correspondence, congressional testimony, and meeting transcripts and related materials are posted on the Board's Web site.
For information on the meeting agenda, contact Dr. Robert Einziger:
1 p.m., Wednesday, March 9, 2016.
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Hearing OPEN to the Public at 1 p.m.
Purpose: Annual Public Hearing to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.
Information on the hearing may be obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, or via email at
OPIC is a U.S. Government agency that provides, on a commercial basis, political risk insurance and financing in friendly developing countries and emerging democracies for environmentally sound projects that confer positive developmental benefits upon the project country while creating employment in the U.S. OPIC is required by section 231A(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”) to hold at least one public hearing each year.
Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Friday, February 26, 2016. The notice must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, email, telephone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request an opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Friday, February 26, 2016. Such statement must be typewritten, double-spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time
A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to a Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On January 5, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a modification to the existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal.
The modification revises Article 15 (concerning postage updates) and replaces Annex 1 of the agreement.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 13, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-79 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than January 13, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Fee Schedule in the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook
In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FICC is modifying the GSD fee structure to (1) change the fees for the existing services that GSD provides to its Members
Based on the revenue that GSD generated in 2015, GSD requires fee modifications in order to meet the budgeted expenses associated with providing its services to Members. Thus, FICC is adopting the proposed rule changes in order to ensure that FICC can achieve and maintain GSD's operating margin.
GSD's ability to achieve its operating margin has been negatively impacted by (i) a decline in the dollar values of transactions; (ii) increased infrastructure costs; (iii) increased risk management costs and (iv) increased third party fees, which GSD has historically absorbed. In addition, GSD also anticipates that the clearing banks will impose new fees for the services that FICC provides to its Members.
The proposed fee modifications to GSD's services and the pass through of existing and new third party fees are expected to aide FICC's ability to achieve and maintain its operating margin because all of the fees will be aligned to FICC's cost of delivering its services to Members.
The proposed rule changes will establish different trade submission and netting fee structures for Broker Accounts and Dealer Accounts because Members who utilize each of these accounts represent two different types of functions that are performed in the market served by the GSD. The Broker Accounts provide the marketplace with the blind-brokered screens through which Dealer Accounts are matched as counterparties (on a blind basis) to the transactions that are submitted to GSD. The Broker Accounts submit two sets of transaction details for every one set that the Dealer Account submits; for example, if Broker A matches Dealer A and Dealer B in a transaction to be submitted to the GSD, each Dealer will submit one transaction as between the Dealer Account and the Broker Account. However, Broker A will submit two transactions, one between the Broker and Dealer A and one between the Broker and Dealer B. The Broker Account will net out for purposes of GSD's processing of the transaction. However, as the trade submission and netting fees are currently structured, the Broker pays for the two sets of transactions (as opposed to the one set paid by the Dealer Account). FICC is proposing to recognize this difference between the Broker Accounts and the Dealer Accounts by charging the Broker Accounts less with respect to the trade submission and netting fees. This approach is consistent with the way in which GSD currently applies its Repo Transaction Processing Fee which is contained in Section III.E of the GSD Fee Structure; specifically, GSD charges Repo Brokers less than other Netting Members. FICC's pass-through of fees imposed on FICC by third parties will affect all Members based on their activity.
FICC is not aware of any significant problems that the affected Members are likely to have in complying with the proposed rule changes.
Currently, the comparison fees for trade submissions are structured to reflect a uniform fee structure based on a Member's total monthly volume. FICC is proposing to change this approach to a structure whereby each incremental number of trades is charged a different price based on tiers with declining marginal rates. In addition, GSD is proposing to establish different fees for Dealer Accounts and Broker Accounts.
In connection with the charge to Members for data received by FICC from a Locked-In Trade Source,
In connection with the charge to non-Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members
(a) For each side of a Compared Trade, Start Leg of a Repo Transaction, Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail Deliver Obligation and Fail Receive Obligation, other than a GCF Repo Transaction, that is netted, the fee structure is currently based on a Member's total monthly number of sides.
The term “Compared Trade” means a trade, including a Repo Transaction, the data on which has been compared or deemed compared in the Comparison System pursuant to the GSD Rules, as the result of any one of the following methods: (1) Bilateral comparison, which requires the matching by the Corporation of data submitted by two Members, (2) demand comparison, which requires that data to be submitted to the Corporation by a demand trade source, or (3) locked-in comparison, which requires the data to be submitted to the Corporation by a locked-in trade source.
The term “Close Leg” means, as regards a Repo Transaction other than a GCF Repo Transaction, the concluding settlement aspects of the transaction, involving the retransfer of the underlying eligible netting securities by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting data on behalf of, the funds lender (if netting eligible, through satisfaction of the applicable Deliver Obligation generated by the Corporation) and the taking back of such eligible securities by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting data on behalf of, the funds borrower (if netting eligible, through satisfaction of the applicable Receive Obligation generated by the Corporation). The term “Close Leg” means, as regards a GCF Repo Transaction, the concluding settlement aspects of the transaction, involving the retransfer of the underlying eligible netting
The term “Fail Deliver Obligation” means a Deliver Obligation with respect to a fail net short position.
The term “Fail Receive Obligation” means a Receive Obligation with respect to a fail net long position.
The term “Repo Transaction” means: (1) An agreement of a party to transfer eligible securities to another party in exchange for the receipt of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the former party to later take back the same eligible securities (or any subsequently substituted eligible securities) from the latter party in exchange for the payment of cash, or (2) an agreement of a party to take in eligible securities from another party in exchange for the payment of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the former party to later transfer back the same eligible securities (or any subsequently substituted eligible securities) to the latter party in exchange for the receipt of cash, as the context may indicate, the data on which have been submitted to the Corporation pursuant to the GSD Rules. A “Repo Transaction” includes a GCF Repo Transaction, unless the context indicates otherwise.
The term “Start Leg” means, as regards a Repo Transaction other than a GCF Repo Transaction, the initial settlement aspects of the Transaction, involving the transfer of the underlying eligible netting securities by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting data on behalf of, the funds borrower (through satisfaction of the applicable Deliver Obligation generated by the Corporation) and the taking in of such eligible securities by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting data on behalf of, the funds lender (if netting eligible, through satisfaction of the applicable Receive Obligation generated by the Corporation). The term “Start Leg” means, as regards a GCF Repo Transaction, the initial settlement aspects of the Transaction, involving the transfer of the underlying eligible netting securities by the Netting Member that is in the GCF net funds borrower position and the taking in of such eligible netting securities by the Netting Member that is in the GCF net funds lender position.
(b) For each one million par of a Compared Trade, Start Leg of a Repo Transaction, Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail Deliver Obligation and Fail Receive Obligation, other than a GCF Repo Transaction, the existing fee will be applicable to Broker Accounts and a new fee will be established for Dealer Accounts.
(c) For each one million par of Deliver Obligation
In connection with the auction takedown Service, FICC is proposing to eliminate the existing fee for locked-in trades and charge Members in accordance with the proposed trade submission schedule in the GSD Rules.
Currently, FICC charges a flat standard charge of $2.35, a portion of which is used to cover the settlement fees of its Deliver Obligations and Receive Obligations. These fees consist of the clearing banks' fees and the Federal Reserve's Fedwire® fees that are incurred by FICC for the services that it provides to Members related to settling obligations at the clearing banks. At the time of this rule filing, the fees are as follows:
1. Fees for the settlement of each Receive Obligation and each Deliver Obligation in the actual amount charged by the applicable clearing bank.
2. Fedwire® fee for the settlement of each treasury security in an amount of $0.92 and for the settlement of each agency security in an amount of $0.65.
FICC is proposing to reduce the amount of this flat charge, which is currently $2.35 and bill Netting Members as a separate item on their billing statement for the applicable clearing bank fees and Fedwire® fees listed above. In addition, FICC will pass-through to Netting Members, new fees that will be imposed by the clearing banks on FICC as well as other existing fees that the clearing banks have imposed on FICC but which FICC has not historically passed through to its Netting Members.
These fees are as follows:
1. The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”) fee of 1 basis point (1bp) per annum on each GCF Repo Deliver Obligation that FICC creates from its BNY account, inclusive of inter-bank.
This fee will be allocated to Dealer Accounts at BNY and to Dealer Accounts at JPMorgan Chase (“JPM”), as follows:
a. For Dealer Accounts at BNY, a pass-through fee is calculated as 1bp per annum on a dollar amount of such Netting Member's
b. For Dealer Accounts at JPM, a pass-through charge is calculated as 1bp per annum on a prorated dollar amount of FICC's interbank GCF Repo Deliver Obligation from BNY to JPM in each Generic CUSIP Number. The proration is calculated as follows:
2. BNY fees for daylight over drafts for FICC's interbank GCF Repo Deliver Obligations.
This pass-through fee will be charged to Dealer Accounts at BNY and will be calculated on a percentage of the total of all such costs incurred by FICC. This percentage is calculated on a monthly basis as follows:
3. BNY fees for daylight over drafts on securities settlement obligations. This pass-through fee will be charged to Dealer Accounts at BNY and will be calculated on a percentage of the total of all such costs incurred by FICC. This percentage is calculated on a monthly basis as follows:
FICC will inform Members via Important Notice if there are any changes to the referenced fees and charges imposed by the clearing banks and/or Fedwire.
FICC is proposing to increase certain fees for its processing of Repo Transactions.
The above-referenced modifications to GSD's fees are noted below.
FICC believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because the fees are correlated to each Member's use of GSD's services and will allow FICC to recover the cost of providing its services to Members. In addition, the proposed change will allow FICC to further recover the cost of providing its services to its Members by passing through certain third-party fees that FICC is incurring and/or will be incurring to provide its services to its Members. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, as amended and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to FICC, in particular section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,
The proposed filing could have an impact on competition based on the fact that fees will increase for certain services, but because of the following reasons, FICC believes that any burden on competition would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. These reasons are as follows: The proposed change modifies the fees for existing services provided by GSD in order to meet GSD's budgeted expenses and allow GSD to achieve and maintain its operating margin and recover the cost of providing its services. The proposed change also allows FICC to recover the cost of providing its services to Members by passing through certain third-party fees that FICC is incurring and/or will be incurring to provide its services to its Members. Finally, the proposed change also establishes different comparison and netting fee structures for Brokers Accounts and Dealer Accounts for the reasons more fully described above.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2015-005 and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii), and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective December 23, 2015. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to waive transaction fees incurred as a result of transactions that compress or reduce certain Clearing Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) open positions.
By way of background, SEC Rule 15C3-1 [sic], Net Capital Requirements for Brokers or Dealers (“Net Capital Rules”), requires that every registered broker-dealer maintain certain specified minimum levels of capital. The primary purpose of these rules is to regulate the ability of broker-dealers to meet their financial obligations to customers and other creditors. All of the broker-dealers that are clearing members of the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) are subject to the Net Capital Rules. However, a subset of OCC's clearing members are subsidiaries of U.S. bank holding companies. As such, these broker-dealers, through their affiliation with their parent U.S. bank holding companies, must comply with bank regulatory capital requirements pursuant to rule-making required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). New rule-making recently enacted under Dodd-Frank will require U.S. bank holding companies to hold substantially more bank regulatory capital than would otherwise be required under the Net Capital Rules. The Exchange is aware that, due to the large contract size of S&P 500 Index (“SPX”) options, open interest in certain series will result in extremely large bank regulatory capital requirements but have minimal requirements under the Net Capital Rules. Transactions that would result in the closing of this open interest would have a beneficial impact on the bank regulatory capital requirements of the Clearing TPH's parent company with a minimal impact on regulatory capital required under the capital rules. The Exchange notes that most of these open positions are in out-of-the-money options and certain spread positions that are essentially riskless strategies because they have little or no market exposure. Particularly, the Exchange notes that given the nature of these options, there is minimal chance for large losses to occur, yet these positions will still be subject to large bank regulatory capital requirements. Exchange transaction fees, however, discourage market participants from closing these positions out even though those market participants may also prefer to close them rather than carry them to expiration.
In order to encourage the compression of certain out-of-the-money and riskless option positions, the Exchange proposes to rebate all transactions fees for transactions that close these positions, provided they meet certain criteria, as described more fully below. The Exchange believes compression of these positions would improve market liquidity by freeing capital currently tied up in positions for which there is a minimal chance that a significant loss would occur.
The Exchange proposes to limit rebating transaction fees to those transactions that the Exchange believes would have the greatest impact on bank regulatory capital requirements but are also constrained to those positions that have little economic risk associated with them. Specifically, to be eligible for a rebate, a transaction must be: (i) For a complex order with at least five
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes providing a rebate of fees for transactions that compress certain out-of-the-money and riskless options positions is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these positions will result in extremely large bank regulatory capital requirements for Clearing TPHs even though there is minimal chance for large losses to occur. Additionally, these positions have little or no economic benefit to the TPHs that hold the positions, who would likely prefer to close them but for the associated transaction fees. The fee rebate would therefore allow TPHs to close out of these positions that are needlessly burdensome on themselves and Clearing TPHs.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the rebate to transactions that are done to close a position with (i) a required capital charge equal to the minimum capital charge under OCC's RBH Calculator or (ii) option series with a delta of ten (10) or less, because this criteria identifies option positions that are truly out-of-the-money or spread positions that are essentially riskless strategies. Particularly, the Exchange notes theoretically riskless positions can be identified when the required capital charge equals the minimum capital charge under OCC's RBH Calculator. Transactions comprised of option series with a delta of no greater than 10 would indicate that an option position is by definition out-of-the-money. For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange wishes to limit the fee rebate to these types of transactions.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the rebate to SPX options (including SPXW and SPXPM) because SPX has a substantially higher notional value than other options classes. As such, open interest in SPX has a much greater effect on a bank's regulatory capital requirements. Compressing out-of-the-money and riskless SPX option positions therefore has a greater impact on reducing a bank regulatory capital requirement.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the rebate to complex orders that involve 5 different series of SPX because the Exchange believes transactions with 5 legs or more would have the most material impact on a bank's regulatory capital requirements.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable to limit the rebate of transaction fees to closing-only transactions (other than Firm “F” orders). Particularly, if a transaction were to open interest, it would defeat the purpose of the proposed rebate, which is to encourage the closing of positions that are creating high bank regulatory capital requirements for positions that are of low economic benefit and risk and could otherwise be offset. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allow Firm (“F”) orders to result in opening transactions because, in these instances, the Firm would be facilitating the closing out of these positions for their clients. The Exchange notes that it already waives transaction fees for facilitation orders in all products other than those listed in Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the rebate to
The Exchange believes requiring TPHs to submit a request for a rebate within three business days of the transactions clarifies the manner in which the rebate can be accomplished in a timely manner and will eliminate any confusion and provide a clear procedure for applicants to get a rebate for their compression transactions, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market. Additionally, the Exchange notes that such requirement will apply to all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act because it applies to all market participants in the same manner with positions that meet the eligible criteria. The proposed change would encourage the closing of positions that needlessly result in burdensome capital requirements that, once closed, would alleviate the capital requirement constraints on TPHs and improve overall market liquidity by freeing capital currently tied up in certain out-of-the-money and riskless positions. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change applies only to CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 6, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) requires each national securities exchange and national securities association to pay transaction fees to the Commission.
Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to annually adjust the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c) to a uniform adjusted rate.
The Commission is required to publish notice of the new fee rates under Section 31 not later than 30 days after the date on which an Act making a regular appropriation for the applicable fiscal year is enacted.
The new fee rate is determined by (1) subtracting the sum of fees estimated to be collected prior to the effective date of the new fee rate
The regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2016 is $1,605,000,000. The Commission estimates that it will collect $502,582,684 in fees for the period prior to the effective date of the new fee rate and $35,649 in assessments on round turn transactions in security futures products during all of fiscal year 2016. Using a new methodology described below, the Commission estimates that the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for the remainder of fiscal year 2016 to be $50,672,728,301,509.
The uniform adjusted rate is computed by dividing the residual fees to be collected of $1,102,381,667 by the estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for the remainder of fiscal year 2016 of $50,672,728,301,509; this results in a uniform adjusted rate for fiscal year 2016 of $21.80 per million.
Under Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act, the fiscal year 2016 annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act shall take effect on the later of October 1, 2015, or 60 days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2016 is enacted.
The methodology used to generate the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales is required to be developed by the Commission in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 31 of the Exchange Act,
By the Commission.
This appendix provides the methodology for determining the annual adjustment to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act for fiscal year 2016. Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the fee rates to be adjusted so that it is reasonably likely that the Commission will collect aggregate fees equal to its regular appropriation for fiscal year 2016.
To make the adjustment, the Commission must project the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales of securities on the securities exchanges and certain over-the-counter markets over the course of the year. The fee rate equals the ratio of the Commission's regular appropriation for fiscal year 2016 (less the sum of fees to be collected during fiscal year 2016 prior to the effective date of the new fee rate and aggregate assessments on security futures transactions during all of fiscal year 2016) to the estimated aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for the remainder of the fiscal year following the effective date of the new fee rate.
For 2016, the Commission has estimated the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales by projecting forward the trend established in the previous decade. More specifically, the dollar amount of covered sales was forecasted for months subsequent to November 2015, the last month for which the Commission has data on the dollar volume of covered sales.
The following sections describe this process in detail.
First, calculate the average daily dollar amount of covered sales (ADS) for each month in the sample (October, 2005-November, 2015). The monthly total dollar amount of covered sales (exchange plus certain over-the-counter markets) is presented in column C of Table A.
Next, model the monthly change in the natural logarithm of ADS as a first order autoregressive process (“AR(1)”), including monthly indicator variables to control for seasonality.
Use the estimated AR(1) model to forecast the monthly change in the log level of ADS. These percent changes can then be applied to obtain forecasts of the total dollar volume of covered sales. The following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the procedure:
1. Begin with the monthly data for total dollar volume of covered sales (column C). The sample spans ten years, from October, 2005-November, 2015.
2. For each month
3. Estimate the AR(1) model
4. For the first month calculate the forecasted value of the log growth rate of ADS as
For the next month use the forecasted value of the log growth rate of the first month to calculate the forecast of the next month. This process iterates until a forecast is generated for all remaining months in the fiscal year. These data appear in column F.
5. Assuming that the regression error in the AR(1) model is normally distributed, the expected percentage change in average daily dollar volume from month
6. For instance, for December 2015, using the β
7. For January 2016, proceed in a similar fashion. Using the estimates for December, 2015 along with the β
8. Repeat this procedure for subsequent months.
1. Use Table A to estimate fees collected for the period 10/1/15 through 2/15/16. The projected aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for this period is $27,314,276,282,567. Actual and projected fee collections at the current fee rate of $18.40 per million are $502,582,684.
2. Estimate the amount of assessments on security futures products collected from 10/1/15 through 9/30/16. First, calculate the average and the standard deviation of the change in log average daily sales, in column E. The average is 0.005148 and the standard deviation is 0.12233. These are used to estimate an average growth rate in ADS using the formula exp (0.005148 +
3. Subtract the amounts $502,582,684 and $35,649 from the target offsetting collection amount set by Congress of $1,605,000,000 leaving $1,102,381,667 to be collected on dollar volume for the period 2/16/2016 through 9/30/2016.
4. Use Table A to estimate dollar volume for the period 2/16/2016 through 9/30/2016. The estimate is $50,672,728,301,509. Finally, compute the fee rate required to produce the additional $1,102,381,667 in revenue. This rate is $1,102,381,667 divided by $50,672,728,301,509 or 0.00002175493.
5. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a rate of 0.0000218 (or $21.80 per million).
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Idaho (FEMA-4246-DR), dated 12/23/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/23/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14579B and for economic injury is 14580B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4247-DR), dated 12/29/2015.
12/29/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/29/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14585B and for economic injury is 14586B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA—4248—DR), dated 01/04/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/04/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14587B and for economic injury is 145880.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4248-DR), dated 01/04/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/04/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14589B and for economic injury is 14590B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated 12/24/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/24/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14581B and for economic injury is 14582B
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
For the purpose of U.S. Government procurement that is covered by Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the effective date of the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement, done on March 30, 2012 at Geneva, World Trade Organization, for the Republic of Korea is January 14, 2016.
Effective date: January 14, 2016.
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20508.
Scott Pietan (202) 395-9646), Director of International Procurement Policy, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20508.
Executive Order 12260 (December 31, 1980) implements the 1979 and 1994 Agreement on Government Procurement, pursuant to Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-2518). In section 1-201 of Executive Order 12260, the President delegated to the United States Trade Representative the functions vested in the President by sections 301, 302, 304, 305(c) and 306 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511, 2512, 2514, 2515(c) and 2516).
The Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement, done at Geneva on March 30, 2012 (Protocol), entered into force on April 6, 2014 for the United States and the following Parties: Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway, European Union, Iceland, and Singapore.
The Protocol provides that following its entry into force, the Protocol will enter into force for each additional Party to the 1994 Agreement 30 days following the date on which the Party deposits its instrument of acceptance. On December 15, 2015, the Republic of Korea deposited its instrument of acceptance to the Protocol. Therefore, the Protocol enters into force on January 14, 2016 for the Republic of Korea. Effective January 14, 2016 for the Republic of Korea, all references in Title III of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 and in Executive Order 12260 to the Agreement on Government Procurement will refer to the 1994 Agreement as amended by the Protocol.
With respect to those Parties that have not deposited their instruments of acceptance, all references in Title III of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 and in Executive Order 12260 to the Agreement on Government Procurement will continue to refer to the 1994 Agreement until 30 days following the deposit by such Party of its instrument of acceptance of the Protocol.
For the full text of the Government Procurement Agreement as amended by the Protocol and the new annexes that set out the procurement covered by all of the Government Procurement Agreement Parties, see GPA-113:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7520 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4025, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6275 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brent Hart (202) 267-4034, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7749 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Nia Daniels, (202-267-7626), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7261 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brent Hart (202) 267-4034, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6462 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4025, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7512 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Nia Daniels, (202-267-7626), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3836 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Docket No.: FAA-2015-3836.
Petitioner: Bombardier Inc.
Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: § 25.813(e)
Description of Relief Sought:
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Section 25.813(e) prohibits the installation of a door that separates any passenger seat that is occupiable during takeoff and landing from any passenger emergency exit. Bombardier Inc., seeks relief from this requirement for the BD-700-2B12 Global 7000 and BD-700-2B13 Global 8000 to allow installation of one or more doors between passenger seats and passenger emergency exits.
Furthermore, Bombardier Inc., requests that the exemption, if granted, not include a condition (limitation) that would prohibit the aircraft from being operated for hire pursuant to 14 CFR part 135.
The petitioner asserts that the aircraft and door(s) will incorporate design features that assure passengers' ability to recognize the location of emergency exits and access those exits; thereby providing for an overall level of safety that is consistent with the intent of the regulations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of waiver.
This notice concerns two petitions for waiver submitted to the FAA by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX): (1) A petition to waive the requirement that a waiver request be submitted at least 60 days before the effective date of the waiver unless good cause for later submission is shown in the petition; and (2) a petition to waive the requirement that analysis must establish designated impact limit lines to bound the area where debris with a ballistic coefficient of three or more pounds per square foot is allowed to impact if the flight safety system (FSS) functions properly.
This notice is effective January 12, 2016 and is applicable beginning December 18, 2015.
For technical questions concerning this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead, Commercial Space Transportation—Licensing and Evaluation Division, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7715; email:
On December 3, 2015, SpaceX submitted a petition to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) requesting relief from a regulatory requirement for a launch license for flight of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle carrying ORBCOMM-2 satellites. Specifically, SpaceX requested relief from § 417.213(a), which requires an analysis to establish flight safety limits that define when an FSS must terminate a launch vehicle's flight to prevent the hazardous effects of the resulting debris impacts from reaching any populated or other protected area, and the associated requirement of § 417.213(d), which requires an analysis to establish designated impact limit lines to bound the area where debris with a ballistic coefficient of three or more is allowed to impact if the FSS functions properly. On December 17, 2015, the FAA advised SpaceX that this relief must be requested as a waiver of § 417.213(a) and (d), and SpaceX modified its request to be a waiver petition in accordance with 14 CFR part 404. Because the scheduled launch was planned to occur in less than sixty days, SpaceX also requested a waiver to section 404.3(b)(5), which requires that a petition for waiver be submitted at least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the waiver, which in this case would be the date of the planned launch.
The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority under Chapter 509.
SpaceX is a private commercial space flight company. The petition addresses an upcoming flight that SpaceX plans to undertake to deliver ORBCOMM-2 satellites. SpaceX plans for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle to launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and fly back the first stage to CCAFS for landing. The flight termination system together with autonomous engine shutdown cannot prevent debris from reaching protected areas for all failure scenarios during the Falcon 9 fly back portion of the launch. Specifically, impact limit lines cannot be developed to ensure all debris with a ballistic coefficient of 3 pounds per square foot (psf) or greater remains on CCAFS.
Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest. 51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2011); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2011).
Section 404.3(b)(5) requires that a petition for waiver be submitted at least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the waiver, which in this case would be the date of the planned launch, initially scheduled for December 19, 2015. This section also provides that a petition may be submitted late for good cause. Here, SpaceX initially submitted its request on December 17, 2015, shortly after being apprised by the FAA that a waiver would be required. Accordingly, the FAA is able to find good cause.
The exact text of 14 CFR 417.213(a) and (d), the regulations at issue, states:
(a)
(d)
The FAA waives the requirement of § 417.213(a) that analysis must establish flight safety limits that define when a flight safety system must terminate a launch vehicle's flight to prevent the hazardous effects of the resulting debris impacts from reaching any populated or other protected area and the associated requirement of § 417.213(d) that the analysis must establish designated impact limit lines to bound the area where debris with a ballistic coefficient of three or more is allowed to impact if the flight safety system functions properly because the Falcon 9 launch will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of property, a national security or foreign policy interest of the United States, and is in the public interest.
The Falcon 9 ORBCOMM-2 launch is the first launch of an orbital expendable launch vehicle with a planned fly back of one of its stages to its launch site. SpaceX has attempted two landings of its Falcon 9 first stage on a barge on the ocean off CCAFS. The stages reached their intended landing spot, but did not survive the landings. In neither case was public health or safety or safety of third party property jeopardized. The damage to SpaceX's barge was minimal. The USAF conducted an assessment of the risk to property on CCAFS and has determined that the risks are acceptable.
The FAA requirements in 14 CFR part 417 have their genesis in USAF Range safety requirements. The FAA and USAF committed to a partnership during the development of today's launch safety regulations with a goal of developing common launch safety requirements and coordinating on requests for relief from the common requirements.
Specifically, the 3 psf ballistic coefficient requirement of § 417.213(d) was intended to (1) capture the current practice of the USAF, (2) provide a clear and consistent basis to establish impact limit lines to determine if an accident as defined by § 401.5 occurred, and (3) help prevent a high consequence to the public given FSS activation.
In assessing the potential public safety impacts associated with debris outside of the impact limit lines for the SpaceX launch, the FAA returned to the original intent of the launch safety requirements: To ensure that launch presents no greater risk to the general public than that imposed by the over-flight of conventional aircraft. In doing so, it applied state-of-the-art techniques to examine the conditional E
The USAF conducted an assessment of the risk to property on CCAFS, including assets used for national security space missions, and has determined that those risks are acceptable. The FAA has identified no national security or foreign policy implications associated with granting this waiver.
The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals of Chapter 509 and the National Space Transportation Policy. Three of the public policy goals of Chapter 509 are: (1) To promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment; (2) to encourage the United States private sector to provide launch and reentry vehicles and associated services; and (3) to facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure to support the full range of United States space-related activities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of waiver.
This notice concerns two petitions for waiver submitted to the FAA by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX): (1) A petition to waive the requirement that a waiver request be submitted at least 60 days before the effective date of the waiver unless good cause for later submission is shown in the petition; and (2) a petition to waive the restriction that the risk to the public from the launch of an expendable launch vehicle not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (E
This notice is effective January 12, 2016 and is applicable beginning December 18, 2015.
For technical questions concerning this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead, Commercial Space Transportation—Licensing and Evaluation Division, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7715; email:
On November 19, 2015, SpaceX submitted a petition, which it revised on November 24, 2015, to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) requesting a waiver with respect to a launch license for flight of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle carrying ORBCOMM-2 satellites. SpaceX requested a waiver of 14 CFR 417.107(b)(1), which prohibits the launch of an expendable launch vehicle if the total expected average number of casualties (E
The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority under Chapter 509.
SpaceX is a private commercial space flight company. The petition addresses an upcoming flight that SpaceX plans to undertake to deliver the ORBCOMM-2 satellites. SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle will launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and its first stage will fly back to CCAFS for landing.
The U.S. Air Force advised SpaceX that the preliminary calculation of E
Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest. 51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2011); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2011).
Section 404.3(b)(5) requires that a petition for waiver be submitted at least sixty days before the proposed effective date of the waiver, which in this case would be the date of the planned launch, currently scheduled for December 19, 2015. This section also provides that a petition may be submitted late for good cause. Here, SpaceX initially submitted its waiver on November 19, 2015, which it revised on November 24, 2015, less than sixty days before the intended launch date. SpaceX needed the results of the initial analysis by the 45th Space Wing Range Safety before it was evident that a waiver of the E
Section 417.107(b)(1) prohibits the launch of a launch vehicle if the total E
The FAA waives the debris risk requirement of section 417.107(b)(1) because the Falcon 9 launch will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of property, a national security or foreign policy interest of the United States, and is in the public interest.
The Falcon 9 ORBCOMM-2 launch is the first launch of an orbital expendable launch vehicle with a planned fly back of one of its stages to the launch site. SpaceX has attempted two landings of its Falcon 9 first stage on a barge on the ocean off CCAFS. The stages reached their intended landing spot, but did not survive the landings. In neither case was public health or safety or safety of third party property jeopardized. The damage to SpaceX's barge was minimal. The USAF conducted an assessment of the risk to property on CCAFS and has determined that the risks are acceptable.
The total risk that will be permitted will not exceed the expected casualty criterion proposed by the FAA in
The current E
The FAA has identified no national security or foreign policy implications associated with granting this waiver.
The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals of Chapter 509 and the National Space Transportation Policy. Three of the public policy goals of Chapter 509 are: (1) To promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment; (2) to encourage the United States private sector to provide launch and reentry vehicles and associated services; and (3) to facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure to support the full range of United States space-related activities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3442 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Dan Ngo (202) 267-4264, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 28 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before [
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0347 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 28 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Anderson, 47, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that David's vision is more than sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Anderson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 190,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 19 years, accumulating 190,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Baim, 57, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Bain has sufficient vision to p0erform [
Mr. Blackburn, 40, has had an embryonic cataract in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Based on Mr. Blackburn's exemplary driving records, and the excellent vision he possesses in his left eye, I strongly feel that he has the necessary vision to be a safe and effective truck driver/operator.” Mr. Blackburn reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 385,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 363,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Byler, 38, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Johnnie's corrected vision and ocular health status are adequate for him operate [sic] the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Byler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 498,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Catanio, 75, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Catanio reported that he has driven straight trucks for 55 years, accumulating 2.2 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 55 years, accumulating 165,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Colberg, 63, has optic atrophy in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1971. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Dana's right eye provides vision sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Colberg reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 225,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating 2.72 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Costas, 56, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my clinical opinion that he is able to drive and has sufficient visualization to meet the criteria for commercial vehicle operation and that his visual acuity has been stable since his last operation, which was in 2010.” Mr. Costas reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a operator's
Mr. Davis, 49, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr [sic] Davis has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Davis reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class ABCD CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez, 44, has had strabismus amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/500. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Patient does have sufficient vision OU to operate a commercial vehicle, but the field of vision has not been examined at our office today.” Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 48,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hines, 49, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “He has sufficient vision on [sic] OS to perform commercial vehicle driving tasks with the assistance of passenger and drivers side mirrors.” Mr. Hines reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Knutson, 61, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I also certify, that in my medical opinion, the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Knutson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class A3 CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lester, 52, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Mr. Lester is capable of perform [sic] the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lester reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 576,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 1.84 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Metzler, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1962. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Gerald Metzler has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Metzler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 542,500 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 24,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Nelson, 32, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “The examination of the right eye is entirely normal with the exception of mild refractive error which has not changed significantly when compared to his current glasses. I believe that he is able to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Nelson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 262,500. He holds an operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and 2 convictions for moving violations in a CMV; in one he exceeded the speed limit by 15 mph and in the other he was impeding traffic with a commercial motor vehicle.
Mr. Peterson, 76, has had age-related macular degeneration in his left eye since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, Douglas Peterson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Peterson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 700,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCD CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Puente, 34, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/300, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I certify that his medical/visual condition does NOT preclude him from operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Puente reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 3,500 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 3,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rhoades, 59, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It remains my opinion that Mr. Dennis Rhoades has more that [
Mr. Rivas, 56, has optic nerve damage in his left eye due to a traumatic
Mr. Saba, 36, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/160, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “The amblyopia in his right eye has not changed since I first examined him on 7/28/1998 . . . In my opinion has condition has not changed and therefore should not restrict ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Saba reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 375,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Scharkey, 74, has had a corneal scar in his left since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Scharkey has sufficient vision to perform vision tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Scharkey reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 50,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 12,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Schwisow, 72, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Based on this testing I would say that in my opinion he has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Schwisow reported that he has driven straight trucks for 59 years, accumulating 1.18 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 44 years, accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and 1 conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 6-10 MPH.
Mr. Smith, Jr., 62, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1971. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Mr. Smith has sufficient vision to continue safely operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 120,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tharp, 34, has had a prosthetic right eye due to a persistent primary hyperplastio vitreous since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye has no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Tharp has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tharp reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 months, accumulating 15,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 187,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tillman, 48, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that his vision is sufficient to drive and operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tillman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 340,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 680,000 miles, and buses for 2 years, accumulating 38,000 miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Delaware. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Weber, 73, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Larry Weber has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Weber reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 24,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 2.6 million miles, and buses for 3 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; the driver was cited for improper/erratic lane change.
Mr. Wescott, 50, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Wescott has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wescott reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.43 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wilkins, 65, has had reduced vision due to retinal membrane in his left eye since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Wilkins has adequate visual skills to operate commercial vehicles without restrictions.” Mr. Wilkins reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 700,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wright, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “As a result, without question, it is my professional medical opinion that
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online 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 the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
By this notice, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is establishing an Emergency Relief Docket for calendar year 2016 so grantees and subgrantees affected by national or regional emergencies may request temporary relief from FTA administrative and statutory requirements.
Bonnie L. Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room E56-306, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 366-4011, fax: (202) 366-3809, or email,
Pursuant to title 49 CFR part 601, subpart D, FTA is establishing the Emergency Relief Docket for calendar year 2016. Subsequent to an emergency or major disaster, the docket may be opened at the request of a grantee or subgrantee, or on the Administrator's own initiative.
In the event a grantee or subgrantee believes the Emergency Relief Docket should be opened and it has not been opened, that grantee or subgrantee may submit a petition in duplicate to the Administrator, via U.S. mail, to: Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; via telephone, at: (202) 366-4011; via fax, at (202) 366-3472, or via email, to
Section 5324(d) of title 49, U.S.C. provides that a grant awarded under section 5324 or under 49 U.S.C. 5307 or 49 U.S.C. 5311 that is made to address an emergency shall be subject to the terms and conditions the Secretary determines are necessary. This language allows FTA to waive statutory, as well as administrative, requirements. Therefore, grantees affected by an emergency or major disaster may request waivers of provisions of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. when a grantee or subgrantee demonstrates the requirement(s) will limit a grantee's or subgrantee's ability to respond to an emergency. Grantees must follow the procedures set forth below when requesting a waiver of statutory or administrative requirements.
All petitions for relief from a provision of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. or FTA administrative requirements must be posted in the docket in order to receive consideration by FTA. The docket is publicly available and can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, via the Internet at
In the event a grantee or subgrantee needs to request immediate relief and does not have access to electronic means to request that relief, the grantee or subgrantee may contact any FTA regional office or FTA headquarters and request that FTA staff submit the petition on its behalf.
(a) Identify the grantee or subgrantee and its geographic location;
(b) Identify the section of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C., or the FTA policy statement, circular, guidance document and/or rule from which the grantee or subgrantee seeks relief;
(c) Specifically address how a requirement in chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., or an FTA requirement in a policy statement, circular, agency guidance or rule will limit a grantee's or subgrantee's ability to respond to an emergency or disaster; and
(d) Specify if the petition for relief is one-time or ongoing, and if ongoing identify the time period for which the
A petition for relief from administrative requirements will be conditionally granted for a period of three (3) business days from the date it is submitted to the Emergency Relief Docket. FTA will review the petition after the expiration of the three business days and review any comments submitted thereto. FTA may contact the grantee or subgrantee that submitted the request for relief, or any party that submits comments to the docket, to obtain more information prior to making a decision. FTA shall then post a decision to the Emergency Relief Docket. FTA's decision will be based on whether the petition meets the criteria for use of these emergency procedures, the substance of the request, and the comments submitted regarding the petition. If FTA does not respond to the request for relief to the docket within three business days, the grantee or subgrantee may assume its petition is granted for a period not to exceed three months until and unless FTA states otherwise.
A petition for relief from statutory requirements will not be conditionally granted and requires a written decision from the FTA Administrator.
Pursuant to section 604.2(f) of FTA's Charter Rule (73 FR 2325, Jan. 14, 2008), grantees and subgrantees may assist with evacuations or other movement of people that might otherwise be considered charter transportation when that transportation is in response to an emergency declared by the President, governor, or mayor, or in an emergency requiring immediate action prior to a formal declaration, even if a formal declaration of an emergency is not eventually made by the President, governor or mayor. Therefore, a request for relief is not necessary in order to provide this service. However, if the emergency lasts more than 45 calendar days, the grantee or subgrantee shall follow the procedures set out in this notice.
FTA reserves the right to reopen any docket and reconsider any decision made pursuant to these emergency procedures based upon its own initiative, based upon information or comments received subsequent to the three business day comment period, or at the request of a grantee or subgrantee upon denial of a request for relief. FTA shall notify the grantee or subgrantee if it plans to reconsider a decision. FTA decision letters, either granting or denying a petition, shall be posted in the Emergency Relief Docket and shall reference the document number of the petition to which it relates.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at the Marriott Downtown at Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.
The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment.
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than Thursday, February 4, 2016, Charles Wipperfurth, Deputy Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.
Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing—January 21, 2016, Washington, DC.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Anthony DeMarino, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108
United States Institute of Peace.
Friday, January 22, 2016 (10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.).
2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.
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 |