Page Range | 22023-22172 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 22171 - National Equal Pay Day, 2016 | |
81 FR 22082 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 22092 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact Concerning Investigational Use of Oxitec OX513A Mosquitoes; Extension of Comment Period | |
81 FR 22048 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 22166 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
81 FR 22165 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
81 FR 22165 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
81 FR 22165 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
81 FR 22166 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
81 FR 22059 - Recruitment of First Responder Network Authority Board Members | |
81 FR 22060 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22155 - Florida Disaster #FL-00115 | |
81 FR 22106 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Solid Minerals and Geothermal Collections-OMB Control Number 1012-0010; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22128 - Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 | |
81 FR 22088 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22132 - Annual Public Meeting | |
81 FR 22082 - Telemarketing Sales Rule Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22154 - Florida Disaster #FL-00112 | |
81 FR 22048 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
81 FR 22049 - Honey From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 22048 - Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Finding | |
81 FR 22039 - Notice of Intent To Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee | |
81 FR 22080 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives-Health-Effects Research Requirements for Manufacturers; EPA ICR No. 1696.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0297 | |
81 FR 22080 - Yosemite Slough Site, San Francisco, California; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Ability To Pay Settlement | |
81 FR 22079 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit | |
81 FR 22118 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest Washington, DC | |
81 FR 22095 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities Guide 5500.3, Revision 1 (Forms and Electronic Data Submissions) | |
81 FR 22129 - Neutron-Absorbing Materials in Spent Fuel Pools | |
81 FR 22076 - Southline Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement | |
81 FR 22166 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
81 FR 22166 - Recruitment Notice for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel | |
81 FR 22032 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer | |
81 FR 22041 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid) | |
81 FR 22064 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22131 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 22130 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 22082 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 22075 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 22074 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 22042 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17A | |
81 FR 22069 - Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
81 FR 22070 - Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' and Board of Directors' Meetings | |
81 FR 22071 - Gregory and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power Cooperative; Gregory Swecker and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power Cooperative and Central Iowa Power Cooperative; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 22069 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 22073 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 22073 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 22068 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 22071 - Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 22072 - Mesquite Solar 3, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 22072 - Mesquite Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 22072 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 22117 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
81 FR 22067 - Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License; SW Complete, Inc | |
81 FR 22040 - Periodic Reporting | |
81 FR 22066 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
81 FR 22129 - Use of Accreditation in Lieu of Commercial Grade Surveys for Procurement of Laboratory Calibration and Test Services | |
81 FR 22090 - Award of Single-Source Program Expansion Supplements to the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, Toppenish, WA, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT | |
81 FR 22050 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Russian River Estuary Management Activities | |
81 FR 22163 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22061 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
81 FR 22120 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Spectrum Consortium | |
81 FR 22131 - Mail Classification Schedule Changes Pertaining to Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Boxes | |
81 FR 22119 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. | |
81 FR 22121 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Chede-VII | |
81 FR 22119 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
81 FR 22121 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Armaments Consortium | |
81 FR 22121 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Stepan Company | |
81 FR 22119 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium | |
81 FR 22122 - Rezik A. Saqer, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
81 FR 22119 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Advanced Combustion Catalyst and Aftertreatment Technologies | |
81 FR 22122 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc. | |
81 FR 22093 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) Program | |
81 FR 22023 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of AH-7921 Into Schedule I | |
81 FR 22105 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool for Public Housing Agencies Solicitation of Comment- 60-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; Correction | |
81 FR 22097 - Announcement of Funding Awards; Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Fiscal Year 2015 | |
81 FR 22103 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD-Administered Small Cities Program Performance Assessment Report | |
81 FR 22063 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22058 - Endangered Species Act; Public Meeting Addendum | |
81 FR 22148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to SPXPM Pilot Program | |
81 FR 22133 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility | |
81 FR 22136 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade of Shares of RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF and RiverFront Dynamic US Flex-Cap ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
81 FR 22138 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 6.1A | |
81 FR 22140 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk Protection | |
81 FR 22151 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility | |
81 FR 22143 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving on an Accelerated Basis a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, To List and Trade Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF of the SSgA Active Trust | |
81 FR 22136 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Reduce the Synchronization Tolerance for Computer Clocks That Are Used To Record Events in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities | |
81 FR 22143 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22150 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22133 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22066 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22128 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive License | |
81 FR 22091 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to the American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education, Washington, DC | |
81 FR 22090 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement to University of Denver (Colorado Seminary), in Denver, CO, for the Capacity Building Center for Tribes | |
81 FR 22116 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
81 FR 22065 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 22104 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Program | |
81 FR 22103 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Program | |
81 FR 22155 - Transit-Oriented Development Planning Pilot Program | |
81 FR 22160 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
81 FR 22067 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Parent Information and School Choice Evaluation | |
81 FR 22044 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Archival Tag Management Measures | |
81 FR 22091 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Grant to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, PA | |
81 FR 22037 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Inc. Airplanes | |
81 FR 22101 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Debt Resolution Program | |
81 FR 22081 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council | |
81 FR 22105 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Revitalization Area Designation and Management | |
81 FR 22102 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Collection for Single Family Premium Collection Subsystem-Upfront (SFPCS-U) | |
81 FR 22093 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 22091 - Announcing the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement to Zero to Three in Washington, DC, for the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams | |
81 FR 22025 - Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); Correction | |
81 FR 22155 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 22033 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 22161 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 22025 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 |
Agricultural Research Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final order.
With the issuance of this final order, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration places the substance AH-7921 (Systematic IUPAC Name: 3,4-dichloro-
Effective May 16, 2016.
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified into one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201(d)(1) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1)) states that, if control of a substance is required “by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings and procedures required by section 201(a) and (b) (21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b)) and section 202(b) (21 U.S.C. 812(b)) of the Act.” 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), 21 CFR 1308.46. If a substance is added to one of the schedules of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, then, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 7 of the Convention, as a signatory Member State, the United States is obligated to control that substance under its national drug control legislation, the CSA. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
On May 8, 2015, the Secretary-General of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States, that during the 58th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, AH-7921 was added to schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. This letter was prompted by a decision at the 58th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2015 to schedule AH-7921 under schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As a signatory Member State to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the United States is obligated to control AH-7921 under its national drug control legislation, the CSA, in the schedule deemed most appropriate to carry out its international obligations. 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1).
AH-7921 is an
DEA is not aware of any claims or any medical or scientific literature suggesting that AH-7921 has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Accordingly, DEA has not requested that HHS conduct a scientific and medical evaluation of the substance's medical utility.
In order to meet the obligations of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and because AH-7921 has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration has determined that this substance should be placed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
Upon the effective date of this final order, AH-7921 is subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Any person who becomes registered with the DEA after May 16, 2016 must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including AH-7921) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including AH-7921) on hand on a biennial basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with §§ 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control is required by the United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols. 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). If control is required pursuant to such international treaty, convention, or protocol, the Attorney General must issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings or procedures otherwise required for scheduling actions.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) directs that if control is required by the United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, scheduling actions shall be issued by order (as compared to scheduling pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) by rule), the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action. In the alternative, even if this action does constitute “rule making” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5), this action is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as an action involving a foreign affairs function of the United States given that this action is being done in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1)'s requirement that such action be taken to comply with the United States obligations under the specified international agreements.
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This action does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. The action does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA or any other law. As explained above, the CSA exempts this final order from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this action.
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This action is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). However, the DEA has submitted a copy of this final order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Narcotics, Prescription drugs.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
The effective date of this document is April 18, 2016.
For questions regarding this correction, contact Dr. Larry Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919) 541-0906 or by email at
The EPA issued the final rule, in FR Doc 2016-06063 on March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14736). That final rule establishes certain Clean Air Act deadlines for the EPA to impose sanctions if a state does not submit a SIP addressing nonattainment area SIP requirements to bring the affected areas into attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO
As published, the final preamble contains an error in a table identifying areas subject to the findings of failure to submit related to the Indiana, Pennsylvania nonattainment area. The Indiana, Pennsylvania nonattainment area consists of the entirety of Indiana County and part of Armstrong County.
In FR Doc 2016-06063 appearing on page 14736 in the
On page 14737, table entitled “STATES AND SO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part and disapproving in part State implementation plan (SIP) revisions
This rule is effective on May 16, 2016.
The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-4192,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On October 20, 2015, we proposed to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
The EPA also proposed to reclassify the South Coast area, including Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM
On December 22, 2015, we finalized our proposal to reclassify the South Coast area from Moderate to Serious for the 2006 PM
In our December 22, 2015 final action to reclassify the South Coast area as a Serious PM
The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on our proposed rule. During this comment period, which ended on November 19, 2015, we received ten sets of public comments on our proposal. Comment letters were submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and the Sierra Club (“Earthjustice”); the San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, or “the Ports”); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association; the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads; the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; the California Trucking Association; BizFed, the Los Angeles County Business Federation; and the Public Solar Power Coalition.
Many of these comment letters address only our proposal to approve the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or District) commitment to adopt a backstop measure related to ports and port-related facilities in 2015, as part of our action on the 2012 PM
Earthjustice acknowledges the EPA's policies allowing for cap and trade programs to satisfy RACT by ensuring emission reductions equal, in the aggregate, to the reductions expected from direct application of RACT on individual affected sources but asserts that, in this case, “EPA cannot simply conclude that a 2 tpd shave to the NO
The SCAQMD adopted the RECLAIM program in 1993 to reduce emissions from the largest stationary sources of NO
Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based cap and trade program may satisfy RACT requirements by ensuring that the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all affected sources within the nonattainment area.
The recent SCAQMD rulemaking documents that Earthjustice cites call into question the efficacy of the 2010 RECLAIM program in ensuring NO
The 2012 PM
Given the information in the Plan about “excess” NO
Our proposal to find that the 2012 PM
As a result of our December 22, 2015 final action reclassifying the South Coast area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM
The Serious area plan for the 2006 PM
On November 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted waiver measures into the California SIP and provided a 30-day period for public comment on its proposal.
In the meantime, we agree with Earthjustice that the RACM/RACT demonstration in the 2012 PM
Earthjustice contends that it is arbitrary to allow the 2011 MVEBs to remain in place for the next transportation plan when revised budgets are available, especially in the South Coast where transportation emissions account for such a large amount of the PM
As we explained in our proposed rule, the 2015 Supplement, which CARB submitted in March 2015, revised the attainment demonstration in the 2012 PM
Section 93.118(e)(4) of the conformity rule states that the EPA will not find a motor vehicle emissions budget in a submitted control strategy SIP to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes unless specific criteria are satisfied, including the requirement in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) that the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance, whichever is relevant to the SIP submission. The 2012 PM
Under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2), in a nonattainment area that has no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs but does have approved or adequate MVEBs in an approved SIP or SIP submission for another NAAQS of the same pollutant, conformity determinations must satisfy the budget test as required by § 93.118 using the approved or adequate MVEBs for that other NAAQS. The South Coast air basin has no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs for the 2006 PM
In sum, because the 2012 PM
The EPA recently approved an updated version of the California EMFAC model (EMFAC2014) for use in SIP development and transportation conformity in California.
Additionally, the commenter asserts that it is reasonable to include solar power as a NO
With respect to the commenter's request to incorporate material by reference, the EPA generally will not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The EPA is taking final action to approve and disapprove SIP revisions submitted by the State of California to address attainment of the 2006 PM
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the following elements of the 2012 PM
1. The 2008 base year emissions inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
2. the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable as meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii);
3. SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM
4. the general conformity budgets for years 2013-2030 listed in Appendix III, p. III-2-53 of the 2012 PM
Simultaneously, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is disapproving the following elements of the 2012 PM
1. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration for failure to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); and
2. the reasonable further progress demonstration for failure to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2).
As a result of this disapproval, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the South Coast PM
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 13, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(439) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(471) The following plan was submitted on March 4, 2015, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional material.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(B) State of California Air Resources Board.
(
(a) * * *
(7) The PM
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2016 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective April 13, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Elizabeth Scheimer, Fishery Management Specialist, (978)-281-9236.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 9,935 lb (4,506 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to New Jersey and 7,350 lb (3,333 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Massachusetts. These transfers were requested by the State of North Carolina to repay landings by North Carolina permitted vessels that landed in other states under safe harbor agreements.
The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2016 are now: North Carolina, 2,147,446 lb (974,065 kg); New Jersey, 1,381,879 lb (626,809 kg); and Massachusetts, 571,252 lb (259,115 kg) based on the initial quotas published in the 2016-2018 Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications, (December 28, 2015, 80 FR 80689) and previous 2016 quota transfers (March 8, 2016, 81 FR 12030).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-20-07, for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2012-20-07 currently requires revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems, and revising the maintenance program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. Since we issued AD 2012-20-07, Airbus has issued more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
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 October 2, 2012, we issued AD 2012-20-07, Amendment 39-17213 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-20-07”). AD 2012-20-07 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2012-20-07, Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014, which contains more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0260, dated December 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
Prompted by an accident . . ., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [
The FAL were specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 FAL document ref. 95A.1931/05 at issue 04 for A318/A319/A320/A321 aeroplanes. This document was approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and is now referenced in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 to comply with EASA policy statement (EASA D2005/CPRO).
Failure to comply with items as identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0155R1 (
The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014. The service information describes fuel system airworthiness limitations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program or before accomplishing the revision of the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness specified in this proposed AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program or ALS has been revised as required by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.
The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.
In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date or as specified by the MCAI, whichever is later. In this case, however, the MCAI compliance time has already expired. We have determined that an appropriate initial compliance time is 60 days for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the fuel airworthiness limitations (
The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.
When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.
To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.
However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part
This proposed AD therefore applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this proposed AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.
In preparation of AD actions, it is the practice of the FAA to obtain technical information and information on the operational and economic impact from design approval holders and aircraft operators. We discussed certain issues related to this NPRM in a recent meeting with Airlines for America (A4A). Shortly after this NPRM is published, we will post a summary of this meeting in the rulemaking docket. For information on locating the docket, see “Examining the AD Docket.”
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2012-20-07, and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-20-07 is $340 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $81,005, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this 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.
We must receive comments by May 31, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2012-20-07, Amendment 39-17213 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-20-07”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before July 19, 2014.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.
This AD was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, and Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 3 months after August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06 (72 FR 40222, July 24, 2007) (“AD 2007-15-06”)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5-Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on March 14, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks;” or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008 (approved by the EASA on December 19, 2008), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008; the initial compliance times start from August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008.
Airbus Operator Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, provides guidance on identifying the applicable sections of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Maintenance Manual for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. For Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, and Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 12 months after August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5-Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on March 14, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations;” or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008 (approved by EASA on December 19, 2008), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes.
Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD and except as provided by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2012-20-07, with specific delegation approval language in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD. Within 6 months after November 21, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-20-07): Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the new or revised tasks, life limits, and CDCCLs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010, except as required in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD. The initial compliance times and intervals are stated in this ALS document, except as required in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, or within 6 months after November 21, 2012, whichever occurs later. For certain tasks, the compliance times depend on the pre-modification and post-modification status of the airplane. Incorporating the requirements of this paragraph terminates the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD only.
(1) For airplanes for which the first flight occurred before August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), the first accomplishment of Tasks 281800-01-1, Functional Check of Tank Vapour Seal and Vent Drain System; and 281800-02-1, Detailed Inspection of Vapour Seal; must be performed no later than 11 months after November 21, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-20-07).
(2) The first accomplishment of Tasks 470000-01-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Shutoff Valves (DFSOV), Dual Flapper Check Valves and Nitrogen Enriched Air (NEA) Line for Leaks; 470000-02-1, Operational Check of Both Dual Flapper Check Valves for Leaks; 470000-03-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow and NEA Line for Leaks; 470000-04-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow; and 470000-05-1, Remove Air Separation Module (ASM) and Return to Vendor for Workshop Check; must be calculated, in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) From the airplane first flight for airplanes on which Airbus modification 38062 or 38195 has been embodied in production.
(ii) From the in-service installation of the fuel tank inerting system specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1001, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1002, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1003, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1004, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.
(3) Although Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010, does not refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007, the tasks apply as specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (j)(3)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Tasks 470000-01-1, Operational Check of DFSOV, Dual Flapper Check Valves and NEA Line for Leaks; and 470000-02-1, Operational Check of Both Dual Flapper Check Valves for leaks; apply to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.
(ii) Task 470000-03-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow and NEA Line for Leaks, applies to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006, and that have not accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.
(iii) Task 470000-04-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow, applies to airplanes in post-modification 38195 configuration and that have not accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.
(iv) Task 470000-05-1, Remove ASM and return to Vendor for Workshop Check, applies to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007, and are in pre-modification 151529 configuration.
(4) Replace each ASM identified in table 1 to paragraph (j)(4) of this AD in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). The compliance time for the replacement is before the accumulation of 27,000 total flight hours (component time)—
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Task 47-10-43-920-001-A, Air Separation Module Replacement, is an additional source of guidance for accomplishment of the removal and replacement of the ASM.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitations (
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with for AD 2012-20-07, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0260, dated December 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of undesirable changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) Bug, occurring during flight without pilot input. This proposed AD would require replacing the flight control computer (FCC). We are proposing this AD to prevent uncommanded pitch changes, which could result in deviation from a safe flight path.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 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 NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-02,
There have been numerous reports of uncommanded changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) Bug during flight. When the Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) is in a speed mode (CLB, DES, IAS or MACH), the flight director will show vertical guidance to achieve or maintain the reference airspeed. If the autopilot is engaged, the aeroplane will automatically follow that vertical guidance and cause the aeroplane to pitch up or pitch down. Investigation revealed that this uncommanded reference airspeed changes were caused by the FCC that did not correctly read the input data from the Input/Output Concentrator. If not corrected, these uncommanded pitch changes could create hazard for continued safe flight. This [Canadian] AD mandates installation of a new filter to the Input/Output Circuit Card in the FCC.
Uncommanded pitch changes, if not corrected, could result in deviation from a safe flight path. Corrective actions include replacing the FCC. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; and Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the FCCs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,008 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this 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.
We must receive comments by May 31, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, that are equipped with a flight control computer (FCC) with a part number and serial number listed in paragraph 1A., Effectivity, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.
This AD was prompted by reports of undesirable changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) bug, occurring during flight without pilot input. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded pitch changes, which could result in deviation from a safe flight path.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 33 months after the effective date of this AD: Remove the FCC from the integrated avionic processor system (IAPS) and replace the FCC in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD:
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015.
As of 12 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may install any FCC having a part or serial number identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015, unless “SB 50” is marked on the FCC modification chart (MOD chart).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin SB 601R-22-018, dated August 17, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-02, dated January 20, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Reopening of comment period.
On November 9, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) published a notice of intent requesting comments and nominations for Tribal representatives for the Accountability Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). The comment period for this notice of intent closed December 24, 2015. The BIE is reopening the comment period for Tribes to nominate individuals for membership on the Committee and is expanding the scope of what the Committee will address. The BIE also solicits comments on the proposal to establish the Committee, including comments on additional interests not identified in this notice of intent and comments on the expansion of the scope of the Committee.
Submit nominations for Committee members or written comments on this notice of intent on or before May 31, 2016.
You may submit nominations for Committee members or written comments on this notice of intent by any of the following methods:
• Send comments or nominations to Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian Education, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104; email:
• Hand-carry comments or use an overnight courier service to Manuel Lujan Jr. Building, Building II, Suite 332, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104.
Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer; Telephone: (505) 563-5274; Fax (505) 563-5281.
On November 9, 2015, we published a notice of intent requesting nominations for a negotiated rulemaking committee to recommend revisions to the existing regulations for BIE's accountability system (80 FR 69161). In that notice of intent, the BIE solicited nominations from Tribes whose students attend BIE-funded schools operated either by BIE or by the Tribe through a contract or grant, to nominate Tribal representatives to serve on the Committee and Tribal alternates to serve when the representative is unavailable.
Since that time, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Public Law 114-95, has become law requiring an update to the subject, scope, and issues that the Committee will address.
The ESSA reauthorizes and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESSA Section 8007(2) directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, if so requested, to use a negotiated rulemaking process to develop regulations for implementation no later than the 2017-2018 academic year. The regulations will define the standards, assessments, and accountability system consistent with Section 1111 of the ESEA, for BIE-funded schools on a national, regional, or Tribal basis. The regulations will be developed in a manner that considers the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools.
ESSA Section 8007(2) also provides that if a Tribal governing body or school board of a BIE-funded school determines the requirements established by the Secretary of the Interior are inappropriate, they may waive, in part or in whole, such requirements. Where such requirements are waived, the Tribal governing body or school board shall, within 60 days, submit to the Secretary of the Interior a proposal for alternative standards, assessments, and an accountability system, if applicable, consistent with ESEA Section 1111. The proposal must take into account the unique circumstances and needs of the school or schools and the students served. The proposal will be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education, unless the Secretary of Education determines that the standards, assessments, and accountability system do not meet the requirements of ESEA Section 1111. Additionally, a Tribal governing body or school board of a BIE-funded school seeking a waiver may request, and the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education will provide, technical assistance.
Due to the statutory changes described above, we are expanding the scope of the negotiated rulemaking committee to receive recommendations and revise our current regulations (25 CFR part 30). This document provides notice that we are expanding the scope and reopens the comment period for: (1) Nominations of individuals for membership on the Committee and (2) comments on the proposal to establish the Committee, including comments on additional interests not identified in this notice of intent and comments on the expansion of the scope of the Committee.
The BIE encourages Tribal self-determination in Native education, encouraging Tribes to develop alternative standards, assessments, and an accountability system and providing technical assistance.
The negotiated rulemaking committee would be charged, consistent with Section 8007, to provide recommendations that encourage the exercise of the authority of Tribes to adopt their own standards, assessments, and an accountability system. Additionally, the Committee will be asked to provide recommendations on how BIE could best provide technical assistance under Section 8007(2).
Each nomination is expected to include a nomination for a representative and an alternate who can fulfill the obligations of membership should the representative be unable to attend. The Committee membership should also reflect the diversity of Tribal interests, and Tribes should nominate representatives and alternates who will:
• Have knowledge of school assessments and accountability systems;
• Have relevant experience as past or present superintendents, principals, teachers, or school board members, or possess direct experience with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);
• Be able to coordinate, to the extent possible, with other Tribes and schools who may not be represented on the Committee;
• Be able to represent the Tribe(s) with the authority to embody Tribal views, communicate with Tribal constituents, and have a clear means to reach agreement on behalf of the Tribe(s);
• Be able to negotiate effectively on behalf of the Tribe(s) represented;
• Be able to commit the time and effort required to attend and prepare for meetings; and
• Be able to collaborate among diverse parties in a consensus-seeking process.
We will consider nominations for Tribal committee representatives only if they are nominated through the process identified in this notice of intent and in the
Based upon the proportionate share of students (see Section V of
Nominations must include the following information about each nominee:
(1) A letter from the Tribe supporting the nomination of the individual to serve as a Tribal representative for the Committee;
(2) A resume reflecting the nominee's qualifications and experience in Indian education; resume to include the nominee's name, Tribal affiliation, job title, major job duties, employer, business address, business telephone and fax numbers (and business email address, if applicable);
(3) The Tribal interest(s) to be represented by the nominee (see Section IV, Part F of
(4) A brief description of how the nominee will represent Tribal views, communicate with Tribal constituents, and have a clear means to reach agreement on behalf of the Tribe(s) they are representing.
(5) A statement on whether the nominee is only representing one Tribe's views or whether the expectation is that the nominee represents a specific group of Tribes.
To be considered, nominations must be received by the close of business on the date listed in the
If you already submitted a nomination prior to the December 24, 2015, deadline, your application will still be considered.
For the above reasons, I hereby certify that the Accountability Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is in the public interest.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal One). 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 April 5, 2016, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider a proposed change in analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
Proposal One seeks the Commission's authorization of a change in the current methodology for reporting revenue, pieces, and weight in the Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (RPW) report
The proposed methodology and program changes relate to the System for International Revenue and Volume, Outbound, and International Origin Destination Information System (SIRVO) as it relates to RPW reporting for the outbound international product categories in Table 1.
Under Proposal One, the Postal Service seeks to enhance the data and estimates of the SIRVO.
The Postal Service asserts that adoption of this proposal will significantly reduce the margins of error for product revenues and volumes.
The Postal Service further asserts that “approximately 50 percent of the revenue . . . of the proposed SIRVO's product estimates for FY2015 are based upon census data sources.”
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-7 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-7 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), filed April 5, 2016.
2. Comments are due no later than May 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than June 6, 2016.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Cassie D'Souza to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
On September 15, 2015, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announced a proposed rule to list
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 13, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; by telephone 931-528-6481; or by facsimile 931-528-7075. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
On September 15, 2015, we published in the
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Please see the Information Requested section of the September 15, 2015, proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304) for a list of the topics on which we particularly seek comment.
For more background on our proposed rule, see the September 15, 2015,
If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final rulemaking. Our final determination concerning this proposed rulemaking will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as 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 comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Because we will consider all comments and information received during the public comment periods, our final determinations may differ from the proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified above in
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would extend the current Gulf commercial shrimp permit moratorium. The intent of this proposed rule and Amendment 17A is to protect federally managed Gulf shrimp stocks while promoting catch efficiency, economic efficiency, and stability in the fishery.
Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0018” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 17A, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The shrimp fishery in the Gulf is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
This proposed rule would extend the Gulf shrimp permit moratorium until October 26, 2026. In 2002, through Amendment 11 to the FMP, the Council established a Federal commercial permit for all vessels harvesting shrimp from Federal waters of the Gulf (67 FR 51074, August 7, 2002). That permit was a Federal open access permit for Gulf shrimp. Approximately 2,951 vessels had been issued these open access permits by 2006. After the establishment of the permit, the shrimp fishery experienced economic losses, primarily because of high fuel costs and reduced shrimp prices caused by competition from imports. These economic losses resulted in decreasing numbers of vessels in the fishery, and consequently, reduction of effort. The Council determined that the number of vessels would likely decline to a point where the fishery again would become profitable for the remaining participants, and new vessels might want to enter the fishery. That additional effort could negate, or at least lessen, profitability for the fleet as a whole. Consequently, through Amendment 13 to the FMP, the Council established a 10-year moratorium on the issuance of new Federal commercial shrimp vessel permits (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). The moratorium on permits indirectly controls shrimping effort in federal waters and thereby bycatch levels. Allowing the moratorium to expire would remove this control. The moratorium on permits also indirectly controls shrimping effort in Federal waters and thereby, bycatch levels of juvenile red snapper and sea turtles. The final rule implementing the moratorium was effective October 26, 2006, and the moratorium permits became effective in March 2007. Extending the moratorium for an additional 10 years until October 26, 2026, is expected to maintain the biological, social, and economic benefits to the shrimp fishery achieved under the moratorium permit over the past 10 years.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 17A, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The current moratorium on Gulf shrimp permits became effective on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). This proposed rule, if implemented, would extend the current moratorium on Federal Gulf shrimp permits until October 26, 2026. The purpose of this proposed rule is to maintain the biological, social, and economic benefits to the Gulf shrimp fishery achieved under the current moratorium. The objectives of this proposed rule are to protect federally managed Gulf shrimp stocks, and promote catch efficiency, economic efficiency, and stability in the Gulf shrimp fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the legal basis for the rule.
This action is expected to directly regulate businesses that possess Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. As of September 21, 2015, there were 1,464 vessels with valid or renewable Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. Although some permits are thought to be held by businesses with the same or substantively the same individual owners, and thus would likely be considered affiliated, ownership data for Gulf shrimp permit holders is incomplete and thus it is not currently feasible to accurately determine whether businesses that have these permits are in fact affiliated. NMFS is currently making changes to its permit application forms so that such determinations can be accurately made for future regulatory actions in this fishery. As a result of the incomplete ownership data, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed each vessel is independently owned by a single business, which will result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule. Thus, the number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule is estimated to be 1,464.
Based on landings and economic data from 2013, which is the most current year for which complete economic data
From 2011 through 2013, the greatest average annual gross revenue earned by a single business was approximately $2.48 million. On average, a business with a Gulf shrimp moratorium permit had an annual gross revenue of approximately $247,000, annual net revenue from operations (commercial fishing activities) of approximately $6,300, and an annual economic profit of approximately $37,000. All monetary estimates are in 2001 dollars. Average annual economic profit was greater between 2011 and 2013 compared to the 2006-2009 time period, and greater than net revenue from operations, partly because of non-fishing related income, mostly in the form of payouts from BP (
SBA has established size standards for all major industries, including commercial shellfish harvesting businesses (NAICS code 114112). A business primarily involved in shellfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $5.5 million. Based on the information above, all businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis. Therefore, it is determined that this proposed rule will affect a substantial number of small businesses.
The number of businesses with Gulf shrimp moratorium permits that had shrimp landings from offshore waters in the Gulf, and, in turn, the level of fishing effort in offshore waters, significantly decreased from 2002 through 2009. As used in this section and Amendment 17A, offshore waters are waters that are seaward of the demarcation lines established under the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which define boundaries across inland waters, such as harbor mouths and inlets, for navigation purposes. Also, businesses had negative net revenue from their operations and generally earned economic losses on average from 2006 through 2009. However, the number of active vessels and, in turn, effort in the offshore Gulf shrimp fishery generally stabilized after 2010.
Although transfer payments from BP as a result of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 event helped to increase economic profits from 2011 through 2013, the increases in net revenue from operations during that time are thought to have been caused primarily by lower fuel prices, higher demand for and thus higher prices for shrimp, and higher catch rates. These higher catch rates are directly attributable to the reductions in effort. To maintain those higher catch rates, effort must at least remain stable. Because net revenue from operations and economic profit have been positive in recent years, if the permit moratorium was not extended and the fishery became subject to open access Gulf shrimp permits, it is possible that the number of active vessels and effort in the offshore fishery would increase, which would be expected to reduce catch rates and, in turn, net revenue from operations and economic profits. Thus, the proposed extension of the moratorium on Gulf shrimp permits for an additional 10 years is expected to result in greater net revenue from operations and economic profit than if the shrimp moratorium permit program was allowed to expire.
Based on the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected as a result of this rule. Thus, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
Commercial fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Permits, Shrimp.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing to revise the regulations that currently require persons surgically implanting archival
Written comments must be received by May 16, 2016.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0017, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Larry Redd, Craig Cockrell, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.
Atlantic HMS are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
“Archival tags” are defined at § 635.2 as “a device that is implanted or affixed to a fish to electronically record scientific information about the migratory behavior of that fish.” Scientists use such tags because they offer a powerful tool for tracking the movements, geolocation, and behavior of individual tunas, shark, swordfish, or billfishes. Data recovery from some archival tags, particularly those that are surgically implanted into the fish, requires that fish be re-caught. Other archival tags, such as PSAT and SPOT, which are externally affixed to the fish, are able to transmit the information remotely and do not require the fish to be re-caught nor do researchers expect the tags to be returned, as generally no additional data is gained from their return. Data from archival tags are used to ascertain HMS life history information such as migratory patterns and spawning site fidelity.
The current regulations under 50 CFR 635.33 regarding archival tags have three parts. First, the regulation requires that any person seeking to affix or implant an archival tag into Atlantic HMS submit an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) or scientific research permit (SRP) with details about the research. The applications ask for details concerning the research objectives, the type and number of tags used, the species and approximate size of the tagged fish, and the location and method of capture of the tagged fish. Second, if a fisherman catches an HMS with an archival tag, the fisherman may land the HMS, regardless of the other regulatory requirements for that fish (
These regulations were implemented in the late 1990s at a time when archival tag technology was new, most of the archival tags had to be surgically implanted into the fish, and the mortality associated with surgically implanting such tags was unknown. Archival tags have been in use for almost 20 years and the mortality associated with the activity, whether it is surgically implanting the tag or affixing it externally to the fish, is now known to be negligible.
NMFS has issued authorizations to only two researchers for the surgical implantation of an archival tag in the last 5 years. Those researchers have placed a small number of surgically implanted archival tags only in bluefin tuna, and generally only in those fish that measure less than 40 inches curved fork length; in larger fish, the researchers prefer to affix external archival tags. Given the limited battery and data storage capacity of archival tags, NMFS expects that there are few continuously functioning implanted archival tags currently in any Atlantic HMS. Researchers have communicated to NMFS that implanted archival tag recovery has decreased over the last 4 years. Presently, PSAT, SPOT, and other externally-affixed archival tags are more commonly used and, as previously mentioned, this is perhaps in part because the data recovery does not depend on re-catching the fish and extricating the tag. Furthermore, while the information that could be provided in the landings report such as location of landing and length of Atlantic HMS may be helpful in assisting scientists, NMFS rarely hears of any archival tagged fish being recaptured. A few times a year, a fisherman may call NMFS to ask where to return a tag (most often these calls are about non-archival tags) they obtained from an Atlantic HMS in their possession. If a fisherman is indeed calling about returning an archival tag, any information collected about the fish is given directly to the scientists or entities noted on the tag and not necessarily to NMFS. Given that scientists continue to place externally-
NMFS is considering revisions to the regulatory requirements because the original conservation and management concern about affixing tags to highly migratory species (
NMFS, in one non-preferred alternative, considered removing all authorization and reporting requirements in the regulations regarding archival tags. Under this alternative, researchers would no longer need to apply for authorization to implant or affix archival tags to Atlantic HMS, and fishermen who catch an Atlantic HMS with an archival tag would no longer be required to make a landing report or make the fish available to a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Additionally, under this alternative, in order to land an HMS with any type of archival tag, fishermen would need to meet the other regulatory requirements applicable to that fish. Under this alternative, the return of any archival tag by a fisherman who retains a tagged Atlantic HMS to NMFS or the tag's originating researcher would be voluntary. For surgically implanted tags, any information collected by the tag would be lost unless the tag is voluntarily returned to either NMFS or the originating researcher. Externally affixed archival tags, such as PSAT and SPOT, are able to remotely transmit their data, making the information collected by the tag available to researchers whether the tag is returned to them or not. However, data about the landings and ultimate disposition of the fish would potentially be lost if the fisherman did not contact NMFS or the researcher. Thus, while this non-preferred alternative would reduce the administrative cost for researchers and for fishermen who catch a fish with any type of archival tag, removing the regulatory incentive to return surgically implanted tags could result in the loss of valuable life history and biological data, the loss of any physical tags currently in the field, and a loss of investment for researchers with such tags currently in the field. Removing the regulatory incentive to contact NMFS or the researcher could also potentially result in a loss of data including data about the landing and ultimate disposition of the fish, although as previously discussed, such reporting for externally affixed tags typically does not currently occur under the regulations.
Data collected from returned surgically-implanted tags are important to the tagging program. Without the regulatory requirement to return surgically implanted tags, the scientific contributions and value of surgically implanted archival tagging programs to Atlantic HMS management and conservation may not be realized. Further, uncertainty about tag and data recovery could dissuade the future use of surgically implanted tags.
NMFS' preferred alternative would modify all parts of the regulation. Specifically, regarding the first part of the regulation, the alternative would remove the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix an archival tag. Regarding the second and third parts of the regulations, the preferred alternative would remove the landings report requirement while maintaining the regulatory incentive that Atlantic HMS caught with a surgically implanted archival tag could be retained, regardless of the other regulations, on the condition that the surgically implanted tag is returned to either the originating researcher or to NMFS. The regulation would no longer require the person retaining the fish to submit a landing report to NMFS or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Rather, anyone catching a fish that could not otherwise be landed, but that has a surgically-implanted archival tag, can land the fish if the fisherman returns the tag to the originating researcher or NMFS. In all other cases, NMFS would encourage the fisherman to return the tag and any information requested directly to the scientist or entity noted on the tag itself. As described above, NMFS believes fishermen already work directly with scientists when returning tags.
NMFS prefers this alternative because it maintains appropriate management and conservation requirements while eliminating certain administrative burdens to make the archival tagging process more efficient. This alternative would reduce any time and delay cost to researchers associated with the applying for a permit to place tags on Atlantic HMS. It would not change the effort or cost to fishermen who catch an Atlantic HMS with a surgically implanted archival tag, although the cost associated with returning the tag to the researcher is minimal.
Additionally, the preferred alternative would offer more certainty that, for those rare surgically-implanted tags, recollection and data recovery would take place by maintaining regulatory incentives for the return of implanted tags. This would afford some assurance to researchers that current or future archival tag research activity with surgically implanted tags would not operate at a loss in investment due to discarded tags and would continue to contribute to the collection of Atlantic HMS life history and biological data. For all the reasons above, NMFS prefers this alternative.
NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed action, which would remove the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization to implant or affix archival tags, to continue to require fishermen who land a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag to return the tag to the researcher or NMFS, to encourage fishermen who land a fish with an externally affixed archival tag to return the tag to the researcher or NMFS, and to remove the landing report requirement.
Additionally, at the September 2015 HMS Advisory Panel meeting in Silver Spring, MD, NMFS received a request to prohibit the retention of any Atlantic HMS caught with an externally affixed archival or electronic tag. The Advisory Panel member who suggested this change noted that archival tags are expensive and that the tagged live fish in the wild allows scientists to collect biological data and other information that cannot be collected by other means. Given this request, NMFS is requesting comments on whether fishermen who catch a fish with an externally affixed archival tag, such as a PSAT or SPOT, should be required to release the fish even if the fish is otherwise legal to land (
Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing, please contact Larry Redd, Craig Cockrell, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed action is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule to revise Atlantic HMS archival tag management measures, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
As described above, this proposed rule would modify the regulations so that researchers would no longer need to obtain written authorization from NMFS before implanting or affixing archival tags. Thus, this proposed rule would reduce any time and delay costs to researchers because they would not need to apply for a permit to place tags on Atlantic HMS. Also, the proposed rule would no longer require the person retaining the fish to submit a landing report to NMFS or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Given that scientists continue to place externally-affixed archival tags and are not notifying NMFS that the lack of enforcement of the landings report is resulting in a loss of needed scientific data, NMFS assumes that both scientists and fishermen would not object to the removal of the landing report requirement but are requesting comments on this provision. Fishermen would be relieved of the obligation to file a landings report with NMFS if they caught and retained an HMS with an externally affixed archival tag and thus would have less regulatory obligation and delay in bringing the fish to market. The cost to fisherman associated with returning the tag to the researcher are minimal and, for surgically implanted tags in recent years, uncommon, particularly since NMFS has issued authorizations to only two researchers for the surgical implantation of an archival tag in the last 5 years. However, if a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag were caught, this proposed rule would offer some certainty that tag recollection and data recovery would take place by maintaining the regulatory incentive for the return of implanted tags to NMFS or the originating research.
For the last five years, NMFS has issued an average of 12 permits for externally affixing archival tags (
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(a)
(b)
(a) * * *
(20) Fail to return a surgically implanted archival tag of a retained Atlantic HMS to NMFS or the research entity and report such retention, as specified in § 635.33.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Chengdu Rong Cheng Jiu Tian Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/276,224, “SPRAYABLE DISPERSED STARCH-BASED BIOPLASTIC FORMULATION TO CONTROL PESTS”, filed on May 13, 2014.
Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Chengdu Rong Cheng Jiu Tian Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
April 20, 2016, 1:00 p.m. EDT.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on April 20, 2016, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will discuss the status of open investigations; an update on audits from the Office of the Inspector General; financial and organizational updates; a review of the agency's action plan; and a calendared notation item related to recommendations 2001-01-H-R9 and 2001-01-H-R10 from the 2002 study on Improving Reactive Hazard Management. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: (888) 466-9863, passcode 9257947#.
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communication Manager, at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSP tape) from Italy would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy.
Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
On March 2, 2015, the Department initiated
On April 8, 2016, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty finding order on PSP tape from Italy would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The products covered by the finding are shipments of PSP tape measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four mils
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the finding will be the date of publication in the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and published pursuant to 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015.
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.
On February 9, 2016, based on a timely request for review on behalf of the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, “Petitioners”),
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Petitioners timely withdrew their request of all three companies by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of honey from the PRC for the period December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015, in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, three species of marine mammals during estuary management activities conducted at the mouth of the Russian River, Sonoma County, California.
This IHA is effective for the period of one year, from April 21, 2016, through April 20, 2017.
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Electronic copies of SCWA's application and any supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth.
The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of these prescriptions requires notice and opportunity for public comment.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On January 20, 2016, we received an adequate and complete request from SCWA for authorization of the taking of marine mammals incidental to Russian River estuary management activities in
Breaching of naturally-formed barrier beach at the mouth of the Russian River requires the use of heavy equipment (
This is the seventh such IHA issued to SCWA. SCWA was first issued an IHA, valid for a period of one year, effective on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 17382), and was subsequently issued one-year IHAs for incidental take associated with the same activities, effective on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 23306), April 21, 2012 (77 FR 24471), April 21, 2013 (78 FR 23746), April 21, 2014 (79 FR 20180), and April 21, 2015 (80 FR 24237).
Additional detail regarding the specified activity was provided in our
The planned action involves management of the estuary to prevent flooding while preventing adverse modification to critical habitat for ESA-listed salmonids. Requirements related to the ESA are described in further detail below. During the lagoon management period, this involves construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel that would facilitate formation of a perched lagoon. A perched lagoon, which is an estuary closed to tidal influence in which water surface elevation is above mean high tide, reduces flooding while maintaining beneficial conditions for juvenile salmonids. Additional breaches of barrier beach may be conducted for the sole purpose of reducing flood risk. SCWA's planned activity was described in detail in our notice of proposed authorization prior to the 2011 IHA (76 FR 14924; March 18, 2011); please see that document for a detailed description of SCWA's estuary management activities. Aside from minor additions to SCWA's biological and physical estuary monitoring measures, the specified activity remains the same as that described in the 2011 document.
The specified activity may occur at any time during the one-year timeframe (April 21, 2016, through April 20, 2017) of the IHA, although construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel will occur only during the lagoon management period. In addition, there are certain restrictions placed on SCWA during the harbor seal pupping season. These, as well as periodicity and frequency of the specified activities, are described in further detail below.
The estuary is located about 97 km (60 mi) northwest of San Francisco in Sonoma County, near Jenner, California (see Figure 1 of SCWA's application). The Russian River watershed encompasses 3,847 km
Within the Russian River watershed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), SCWA and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District) operate and maintain federal facilities and conduct activities in addition to the estuary management, including flood control, water diversion and storage, instream flow releases, hydroelectric power generation, channel maintenance, and fish hatchery production. As described in the notice of proposed IHA, NMFS issued a 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the Corps, SCWA and the District in the Russian River watershed (NMFS, 2008). This BiOp found that the activities—including SCWA's estuary management activities prior to the BiOp—authorized by the Corps and undertaken by SCWA and the District, if continued in a manner similar to recent historic practices, were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed salmonids and were likely to adversely modify critical habitat. In part, therefore, the BiOp requires SCWA to collaborate with NMFS and modify their estuary water level management in order to reduce marine influence (
There are three components to SCWA's ongoing estuary management activities: (1) Lagoon outlet channel management, during the lagoon management period only, required to accomplish the dual purposes of flood risk abatement and maintenance of juvenile salmonid habitat; (2) traditional artificial breaching, with the sole objective of flood risk abatement; and (3) physical and biological monitoring in and near the estuary, required under the terms of the BiOp, to understand response to water surface elevation management in the estuary-lagoon system. The latter category (physical and biological monitoring) includes all ancillary beach and/or estuary monitoring activities, including topographic and geophysical beach surveys and biological and physical habitat monitoring in the estuary. Please see the previously referenced
We published a notice of receipt of SCWA's application and proposed IHA in the
The marine mammal species that may be harassed incidental to estuary management activities are the harbor seal, California sea lion, and the northern elephant seal. We presented a detailed discussion of the status of these stocks and their occurrence in the action area in the notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 8924; February 23, 2016).
Ongoing monthly harbor seal counts at the Jenner haul-out were begun by J. Mortenson in January 1987, with additional nearby haul-outs added to the counts thereafter. In addition, local resident E. Twohy began daily observations of seals and people at the Jenner haul-out in November 1989. These datasets note whether the mouth at the Jenner haul-out was opened or closed at each observation, as well as various other daily and annual patterns of haul-out usage (Mortenson and Twohy, 1994). Recently, SCWA began regular baseline monitoring of the haul-out as a component of its estuary management activity. In the notice of proposed IHA, we presented average daily numbers of seals observed at the mouth of the Russian River from 1993-2005 and from 2009-15 (see Table 1; 81 FR 8924; February 23, 2016).
We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals in the notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 8924; February 23, 2016). A summary of anticipated effects is provided below.
A significant body of monitoring data exists for pinnipeds at the mouth of the Russian River. In addition, pinnipeds have co-existed with regular estuary management activity for decades as well as with regular human use activity at the beach, and are likely habituated to human presence and activity. Nevertheless, SCWA's estuary management activities have the potential to disturb pinnipeds present on the beach or at peripheral haul-outs in the estuary. During breaching operations, past monitoring has revealed that some or all of the seals present typically move or flush from the beach in response to the presence of crew and equipment, though some may remain hauled-out. No stampeding of seals—a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus—has been documented since SCWA developed protocols to prevent such events in 1999. While it is likely impossible to conduct required estuary management activities without provoking some response in hauled-out animals, precautionary mitigation measures, described later in this document, ensure that animals are gradually apprised of human approach. Under these conditions, seals typically exhibit a continuum of responses, beginning with alert movements (
California sea lions and northern elephant seals, which have been noted only infrequently in the action area, have been observed as less sensitive to stimulus than harbor seals during monitoring at numerous other sites. For example, monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a result of abalone research in the Channel Islands showed that while harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 percent, California sea lions flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for elephant seals declined to 0.1 percent (VanBlaricom, 2011). In the event that either of these species is present during management activities, they would be expected to display a minimal reaction to maintenance activities—less than that expected of harbor seals.
Although the Jenner haul-out is not known as a primary pupping beach, harbor seal pups have been observed during the pupping season; therefore, we have evaluated the potential for injury, serious injury or mortality to pups. There is a lack of published data regarding pupping at the mouth of the Russian River, but SCWA monitors have observed pups on the beach. No births were observed during recent monitoring, but were inferred based on signs indicating pupping (
Similarly, the period of mother-pup bonding, critical time needed to ensure pup survival and maximize pup health, is not expected to be impacted by estuary management activities. Harbor seal pups are extremely precocious, swimming and diving immediately after birth and throughout the lactation period, unlike most other phocids which normally enter the sea only after weaning (Lawson and Renouf, 1985; Cottrell
In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds during estuary management activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
We provided a detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat in the notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 8924; February 23, 2016). SCWA's estuary management activities will result in temporary physical alteration of the Jenner haul-out. With barrier beach closure, seal usage of the beach haul-out declines, and the three nearby river haul-outs may not be available for usage due to rising water surface elevations. Breaching of the barrier beach, subsequent to the temporary habitat disturbance, will likely increase suitability and availability of habitat for pinnipeds. Biological and water quality monitoring will not physically alter pinniped habitat.
In summary, there will be temporary physical alteration of the beach. However, natural opening and closure of the beach results in the same impacts to habitat; therefore, seals are likely adapted to this cycle. In addition, the increase in rearing habitat quality has the goal of increasing salmonid abundance, ultimately providing more food for seals present within the action area. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
SCWA will continue the following mitigation measures, as implemented during the previous IHAs, designed to minimize impact to affected species and stocks:
• SCWA crews will cautiously approach (
• SCWA staff will avoid walking or driving equipment through the seal haul-out.
• Crews on foot will make an effort to be seen by seals from a distance, if possible, rather than appearing suddenly at the top of the sandbar, again preventing sudden flushes.
• During breaching events, all monitoring will be conducted from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out in order to minimize potential for harassment.
• A water level management event may not occur for more than two consecutive days unless flooding threats cannot be controlled.
In addition, SCWA will continue mitigation measures specific to pupping season (March 15-June 30), as implemented in the previous IHA:
• SCWA will maintain a one-week no-work period between water level management events (unless flooding is an immediate threat) to allow for an adequate disturbance recovery period. During the no-work period, equipment must be removed from the beach.
• If a pup less than one week old is on the beach where heavy machinery will be used or on the path used to access the work location, the management action will be delayed until the pup has left the site or the latest day possible to prevent flooding while still maintaining suitable fish rearing habitat. In the event that a pup remains present on the beach in the presence of flood risk, SCWA will consult with NMFS to determine the appropriate course of action. SCWA will coordinate with the locally established seal monitoring program (Stewards' Seal Watch) to determine if pups less than one week old are on the beach prior to a breaching event.
• Physical and biological monitoring (including topographic and geophysical beach surveys) will not be conducted if a pup less than one week old is present at the monitoring site or on a path to the site.
• Any jetty study activities in the vicinity of the harbor seal haul-out will not occur during the pupping season.
Equipment will be driven slowly on the beach and care will be taken to minimize the number of shutdowns and start-ups when the equipment is on the beach. All work will be completed as efficiently as possible, with the smallest amount of heavy equipment possible, to minimize disturbance of seals at the haul-out. Boats operating near river haul-outs during monitoring will be kept within posted speed limits and driven as far from the haul-outs as safely possible to minimize flushing seals.
We have carefully evaluated SCWA's planned mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
• Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
• A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
• A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).
• A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
• Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
• For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of SCWA's planned measures and on SCWA's record of management at the mouth of
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within defined zones of effect (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to stimuli that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment or hearing threshold shifts;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in incidental take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals may impact the population, stock, or species (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
• Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict pertinent information,
• Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict pertinent information,
• Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; or
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
SCWA submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found on the Internet at
1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River estuary mouth at Jenner?
2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out respond to activities associated with the construction and maintenance of the lagoon outlet channel and artificial breaching activities?
3. Does the number of seals at the Jenner haul-out significantly differ from historic averages with formation of a summer (May 15 to October 15) lagoon in the Russian River estuary?
4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out displaced to nearby river and coastal haul-outs when the mouth remains closed in the summer?
SCWA plans to modify the baseline monitoring component of their existing 2011 Monitoring Plan in order to better focus monitoring effort on the Jenner haul-out. This primary haul-out is where the majority of seals are found and where pupping occurs, and SCWA believes that the modifications will better allow continued development in understanding the physical and biological factors that influence seal abundance and behavior at the site. In particular, SCWA notes that increasing the frequency of surveys will allow them to be able to observe the influence of physical changes that do not persist for more than ten days, like brief periods of barrier beach closures or other environmental changes. The changes will improve SCWA's ability to describe how seals respond to barrier beach closures and allow for more accurate estimation of the number of harbor seal pups born at Jenner each year.
Regarding decreased frequency of monitoring at peripheral sites, abundance at these sites has been observed to generally be very low regardless of river mouth condition. These sites are generally very small physically, composed of small rocks or outcrops or logs in the river, and therefore could not accommodate significant displacement from the main beach haul-out. Monitoring of peripheral sites under extended lagoon conditions will allow for possible detection of any changed use patterns. In summary, the modifications include increasing the frequency of surveys at the Jenner haul-out from twice a month to four times a month and reducing the duration of each survey from eight to four hours. Baseline visits to the peripheral haul-outs will be eliminated except in the case that a lagoon outlet channel is constructed and maintained for a prolonged period (over 21 days).
In addition to the census data, disturbances of the haul-out are recorded. The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). Disturbances will be recorded on a three-point scale that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance. The time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haul-out, are recorded. It
In an effort towards understanding possible relationships between use of the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal and river haul-outs, several other haul-outs on the coast and in the Russian River estuary are monitored as well (see Figure 1 of SCWA's monitoring plan). As described above, peripheral site monitoring will occur only in the event of an extended period of lagoon conditions (
In an attempt to understand whether seals from the Jenner haul-out are displaced to coastal and river haul-outs nearby when management events occur, other nearby haul-outs are monitored concurrently with monitoring of outlet channel construction and maintenance activities. This provides an opportunity to qualitatively assess whether these haul-outs are being used by seals displaced from the Jenner haul-out. This monitoring will not provide definitive results regarding displacement to nearby coastal and river haul-outs, as individual seals are not marked, but is useful in tracking general trends in haul-out use during disturbance. As volunteers are required to monitor these peripheral haul-outs, haul-out locations may need to be prioritized if there are not enough volunteers available. In that case, priority will be assigned to the nearest haul-outs (North Jenner and Odin Cove), followed by the Russian River estuary haul-outs, and finally the more distant coastal haul-outs.
For all counts, the following information will be recorded in thirty-minute intervals: (1) Pinniped counts, by species; (2) behavior; (3) time, source and duration of any disturbance; (4) estimated distances between source of disturbance and pinnipeds; (5) weather conditions (
If, during monitoring, observers sight any pup that might be abandoned, SCWA will contact the NMFS stranding response network immediately and also report the incident to NMFS' West Coast Regional Office and Office of Protected Resources within 48 hours. Observers will not approach or move the pup. Potential indications that a pup may be abandoned are no observed contact with adult seals, no movement of the pup, and the pup's attempts to nurse are rebuffed.
SCWA is required to submit a report on all activities and marine mammal monitoring results to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Administrator, NMFS, 90 days prior to the expiration of the IHA if a renewal is sought, or within 90 days of the expiration of the permit otherwise. This annual report will also be distributed to California State Parks and Stewards, and would be available to the public on SCWA's Web site. This report will contain the following information:
• The number of pinnipeds taken, by species and age class (if possible);
• Behavior prior to and during water level management events;
• Start and end time of activity;
• Estimated distances between source and pinnipeds when disturbance occurs;
• Weather conditions (
• Haul-out reoccupation time of any pinnipeds based on post-activity monitoring;
• Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation; and
• Seal census from bi-monthly and nearby haul-out monitoring.
The annual report includes descriptions of monitoring methodology, tabulation of estuary management events, summary of monitoring results, and discussion of problems noted and proposed remedial measures. SCWA will report any injured or dead marine mammals to NMFS' West Coast Regional Office and Office of Protected Resources.
SCWA complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under all previous authorizations. In accordance with the 2015 IHA, SCWA submitted a Report of Activities and Monitoring Results, covering the period of January 1 through December 31, 2015. Previous monitoring reports (available at
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
We are authorizing SCWA to take harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to estuary management activities. These activities, involving increased human presence and the use of heavy equipment and support vehicles, are expected to harass pinnipeds present at the haul-out through behavioral disturbance only. In addition, monitoring activities prescribed in the BiOp may result in harassment of additional individuals at the Jenner haul-out and at the three haul-outs located in the estuary. Estimates of the number of harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals that may be harassed by the activities is based upon the number of potential events associated with Russian River estuary management activities and the average number of individuals of each species that are present during conditions appropriate to the activity. As described previously in this document, monitoring effort at the mouth of the Russian River has shown that the number of seals utilizing the haul-out declines during bar-closed conditions. Tables 1 and 2 detail the total number of authorized takes. Methodology of take estimation was discussed in detail in our notice of proposed IHA (81 FR 8924; February 23, 2016).
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “ . . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Although SCWA's estuary management activities may disturb pinnipeds hauled out at the mouth of the Russian River, as well as those hauled out at several locations in the estuary during recurring monitoring activities, impacts are occurring to a small, localized group of animals. While these impacts can occur year-round, they occur sporadically and for limited duration (
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated, nor is the proposed action likely to result in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out. Injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds would likely result from startling animals inhabiting the haul-out into a stampede reaction, or from extended mother-pup separation as a result of such a stampede. Long-term impacts to pinniped usage of the haul-out could result from significantly increased presence of humans and equipment on the beach. To avoid these possibilities, we have worked with SCWA to develop the previously described mitigation measures. These are designed to reduce the possibility of startling pinnipeds, by gradually apprising them of the presence of humans and equipment on
No pinniped stocks for which incidental take is authorized are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or depleted under the MMPA. Recent data suggests that harbor seal populations have reached carrying capacity; populations of California sea lions and northern elephant seals in California are also considered healthy. In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds during estuary management activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
The authorized number of animals taken for each species of pinniped can be considered small relative to the population size. There are an estimated 30,968 harbor seals in the California stock, 296,750 California sea lions, and 179,000 northern elephant seals in the California breeding population. Based on extensive monitoring effort specific to the affected haul-out and historical data on the frequency of the specified activity, we are proposing to authorize take, by Level B harassment only, of 4,464 harbor seals, 36 California sea lions, and 36 northern elephant seals, representing 14.4, 0.01, and 0.02 percent of the populations, respectively. However, this represents an overestimate of the number of individuals harassed over the duration of the IHA, because these totals represent much smaller numbers of individuals that may be harassed multiple times. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required. As described elsewhere in this document, SCWA and the Corps consulted with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA regarding the potential effects of their operations and maintenance activities, including SCWA's estuary management program, on ESA-listed salmonids. As a result of this consultation, NMFS issued the Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2008), including Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, which prescribes modifications to SCWA's estuary management activities. The effects of the proposed activities and authorized take would not cause additional effects for which section 7 consultation would be required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to SCWA to conduct estuary management activities in the Russian River from the period of April 21, 2016, through April 20, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are implemented.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting, addendum.
The purpose of the program review is to ensure that recovery program priorities and implementation are aligned with resources and mission mandates; enhance and align strategic management of NMFS regulatory programs; and provide transparency in the operation of NMFS recovery
The meeting will be held Tuesday April 19, 2016, through Thursday April 21, 2016, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the NOAA Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: 301-713-1010.
Therese Conant, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8456.
We, NMFS, announced a public meeting of a review of our recovery program under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11518). Under the ESA, section 4(f) requires the Secretary to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. Those recovery plans must include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would lead to a determination that the species be removed from the list, site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the conservation of the species, and estimates of the time and costs to carry out the measures identified in the plan.
We currently have final recovery plans for 47 species and draft recovery plans for five species. Recovery plans are not started or are under development for 39 species. The objective of the recovery program review is to determine if the current recovery planning process results in recovery plans that are effective roadmaps for recovering the species as evidenced by whether the plans are being implemented by NMFS and stakeholders, resulting in progress towards meeting the recovery criteria so that the species may be delisted. This review will evaluate, within the context of current budget constraints, the efficacy of the recovery planning process, including the quality of the recovery plans, the implementation of recovery actions, and the monitoring of recovery progress. This review will provide recommendations to improve recovery plans and the recovery planning and implementation process to increase the likelihood of recovering species.
The meeting is open to the public all day, and the public will have an opportunity to provide verbal or written comments in one-hour sessions each day. See agenda for remote access information and timing for public comments at under Recent News and Hot Topics at
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issues this Notice on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to initiate the annual process to seek expressions of interest from individuals who would like to serve on the FirstNet Board.
Expressions of interest must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before May 20, 2016.
Persons wishing to submit expressions of interest as described below should send that information to: Marsha MacBride, Acting Associate Administrator of NTIA's Office of Public Safety Communications, by email to
Marsha MacBride, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5802; email:
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and charged it with ensuring the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network, based on a single, national network architecture.
The FirstNet Board is composed of 15 voting members. The Act names the
(Term expires: August 2016)
(Term expires: August 2017)
More information about the FirstNet Board is available at
FirstNet Board members are appointed as special government employees. FirstNet Board members are compensated at the daily rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule (approximately $160,300 per year).
FirstNet Board members must comply with certain federal conflict of interest statutes and ethics regulations, including some financial disclosure requirements. A FirstNet Board member will generally be prohibited from participating on any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on his or her personal financial interests or on the interests of the appointee's spouse, minor children, or non-federal employer.
At the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, NTIA, in consultation with FirstNet, will conduct outreach to the public safety community, state and local organizations, and industry to solicit nominations for candidates to the Board who satisfy the statutory requirements for membership. In addition, by this Notice, the Secretary of Commerce, through NTIA, will accept expressions of interest until May 20, 2016 from any individual, or any organization that wishes to propose a candidate, who satisfies the statutory requirements for membership on the FirstNet Board.
All parties wishing to be considered should submit their full name, address, telephone number, email address, a current resume, and a statement of qualifications that references how the candidate satisfies the Act's expertise, representational, and geographic requirements for FirstNet Board membership, as described in this Notice, along with a statement describing why they want to serve on the FirstNet Board and affirming their ability and availability to take a regular and active role in the Board's work.
The Secretary of Commerce will select FirstNet Board candidates based on the eligibility requirements in the Act and recommendations submitted by NTIA, in consultation with the FirstNet Board's Governance and Personnel Committee. NTIA will recommend candidates based on an assessment of their qualifications as well as their demonstrated ability to work in a collaborative way to achieve the goals and objectives of FirstNet as set forth in the Act. Board candidates will be vetted through the Department of Commerce and are subject to an appropriate background check for security clearance.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the External Reviewer Application which is used by CNCS to recruit individuals to review grant applications. The information will be provided by individuals wishing to serve as external review participants for CNCS's grant review processes. The completion of this information collection is required to be considered as a potential reviewer for CNCS.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Grants Policy and Operations, Attention: Vielka Garibaldi, Director, Room 3228, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom on the 4th floor at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Vielka Garibaldi, 202-606-6886, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
The External Reviewer Application is used by individuals who wish to serve as External Reviewers or External Panel Coordinators for CNCS when external reviewers are needed to review grant applications. The information collected will be used by CNCS to select review participants for each grant competition. The information is collected electronically using “Grants and Member Management” (GMM), CNCS's web-based system.
CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The application and instructions have been updated in order to capture the required information in a more streamlined fashion within the GMM system. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on September 30, 2016.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) (703) 697-9217.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-23 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Up to 2,950 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I)
Up to 50 Guided Test Vehicles (GTV) with GBU-39 (T-1)/B (Inert Fuze)
This request also includes the following Non-MDE: containers, weapons system support equipment, support and test equipment, site survey, transportation, repair and return warranties, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training, and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of:
Up to 2,950 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB I)
Up to 50 Guided Test Vehicles (GTV) with GBU-39 (T-1)/B (Inert Fuze)
This request also includes the following Non-MDE: containers, weapons system support equipment, support and test equipment, site survey, transportation, repair and return warranties, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training, and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
The total estimated value of MDE is $172 million. The total overall estimated value is $386 million.
Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in the Pacific region and globally.
The sale of SDB I supports and complements the on-going sale of the F-35 to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). This capability will strengthen combined operations and increase interoperability between the U.S. Air Force and the RAAF. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor for production is Boeing in St. Louis, Missouri. The principal contractor for integration is unknown and will be determined during contract negotiations. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Sensitive and/or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed acquisition include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment I (SDB I). Additional sensitive areas include operating manuals and maintenance technical orders containing performance information, operating and test procedures, and other information related to the support operations and repair. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters, and other similar critical information.
2. The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment I (SDB I) is a 250-pound class weapon designed as a small, all-weather, autonomous, conventional, air-to-ground, precision glide weapon able to strike fixed and stationary re-locatable targets from standoff range. The SDB I weapon system consists of the weapons, the BRU-61/A (4-place pneumatic carriage system), shipping and handling containers for a single weapon and the BRU-61/A either empty or loaded, and a weapon planning module. It has integrated diamond-back type wings that deploy after releases, which increases the glide time and therefore maximum range. The SDB I Anti-Jam Global Positioning System aided Inertial Navigation System (AJGPS/INS) provides guidance to the coordinates of a stationary target. The payload/warhead is a very effective multipurpose penetrating and blast fragmentation warhead coupled with a cockpit selectable electronic fuze. Its size and accuracy allow for an effective munition with less collateral damage. A proximity sensor provides height of burst capability.
3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology associated with this system as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 13, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service; Chief of Financial Operations; Retired and Annuitant Pay External Communications Division; ATTN: Chuck Moss, Cleveland, OH 44199-2001, or call at (216) 204-4426.
Respondents are retirees living in a foreign country who receive a hard copy check mailed to them. Payments are suspended if the DFAS Form 1800-99 is not returned.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 13, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Office of Financial Operations, Retired and Annuitant Pay, External Communications Division, ATTN: Chuck Moss, Cleveland, OH 44199-2001, or call at (216) 204-4426.
Respondents are trustees, guardians, or conservators of military retiree to verify eligibility of benefits. Payments are suspended if the DFAS Form 1800-102 is not returned.
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 13, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Communications & Customer Access Division, ATTN: Ms. Angela Davis, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218, or call the DTIC Communication & Customer Access Division at (703) 767-8207.
The purpose of these surveys is to assess the level of service DTIC provides to its current customers. The surveys will provide information on the level of overall customer satisfaction and on customer satisfaction with several attributes of service which impact the level of overall satisfaction. The objectives of the survey are to help DTIC (1) gauge the level of satisfaction among users and (2) identify possible areas for improving our products and services. The surveys are designed to assist in evaluating the following knowledge objectives:
• To improve customer retention.
• To determine the perceived quality of products, service, and customer care.
• To indicate trends in products, services, and customer care.
• To benchmark DTIC's customer satisfaction results with other Federal government agencies.
The universe population can be composed of the Defense community including components of the Department of Defense and the military services, other federal government agencies, U.S. government contractors, Private Industry, and College/University. The respondents will be able to come to a Web site and/or URL to volunteer to respond to a web based feedback form.
Defense Acquisition University, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 13, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this
Respondents are university applicants and instructors who willingly provide personal information to take courses administered by the Defense Acquisition University or access DAU training, knowledge sharing and collaboration systems. Failure to provide required information results in the individual being denied access to DAU training, knowledge sharing and collaboration systems and its course offerings. The data is used by DoD and University officials to: Provide for the administration of and a records of academic performance of current, former and nominated students; verify grades; select instructors; make decisions to admit students to programs and classes, and to release students from programs; serve as a basis for studies to determine improved criteria for selecting students into classes, expertise identification and to develop statistics relating to duty assignments and qualifications based on DoD mandated training needs.
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Air University Board of Visitors (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The Board's charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at
The Board provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Air Force, independent advice and recommendations on educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of the Air University.
The Board is comprised of no more than 15 members who are eminent authorities in the fields of air power, defense, management, leadership, and academia. All members of the Board are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, Board members serve without compensation.
The DoD, when necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board. Currently, the Secretary of the Air Force has approved one permanent subcommittee to the Board, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Subcommittee. The AFIT Subcommittee is composed of no more than 15 members. The primary focus of the Subcommittee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Board concerning Department of the Air Force engineering and technology graduate programs.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 13, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 8899 E. 56th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46249, ATTN: DFAS-IN/ZPF, Column 327E, Dennis Vollmer, or call DFAS, Finance Policy, at 317-212-5320.
On occasion of completion of official Government travel, information on military Service member dependents, civilian employee dependents, and military retirees and their dependents, is collected in order to properly complete the DD 1351, 1351-2, and 1351-2C, and to submit to DoD as a claim against the Government for monetary travel entitlements due a traveler authorized by DoD regulations governing official Government travel. Data collection on these forms is necessary in order to provide the pertinent information for submission of forms to a travel computation office which is responsible for manually entering the required data into computer software programs designed to accurately calculate monetary entitlements due to an official government traveler and their dependents. If this information is not collected and submitted to the DoD, accurate calculations and payments of entitled monetary amounts due to a traveler may not occur.
National Security Agency, DoD.
Notice.
The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent to grant SW Complete, Inc. a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described and claimed in United States Patent Numbers (USPN), 6,515,666 B1, Method for Constructing Graph and 6,311,183 B1, Method for Finding Large Numbers of Keywords in Continuous Text Streams.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until April 29, 2016 to file written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.
Linda L. Burger, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3518.
The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the National Security Agency.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 May 16, 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 Meredith Bachman, 202-245-7494.
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
IES has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct the needed research. Most of the experiment will be conducted with members of a standing panel who already complete surveys on a regular basis for a variety of purposes. This approach provides a low-cost and quick turnaround method to obtain findings related to the understandability of school choice information, which does not require respondents to be making actual school choices for their children. To enhance what can be learned from the standing panel, the research team also intends to recruit a sample of low-income parents of school-age children from locations where a public school choice marketplace with unified enrollment has been active for at least two years. Parents who have experienced public school choice or are at least exposed to open enrollment in their district may experience the experiment differently than the standing panel members, for whom considering schools other than one's default neighborhood school may be unfamiliar. This augmented sample of, presumably, less survey-savvy low-income parents will be used to provide a sensitivity check of the findings based on the standing panel alone.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 31, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Medallion Pipeline Company, LLC (Medallion), filed a petition for a declaratory order addressing its third set
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that Commissioners and members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional State Committee (RSC), SPP Members Committee and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
All meetings will be held at the El Dorado Hotel, 309 West San Francisco St., Santa Fe, NM 87501. The phone number is (505) 988-4455.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Take notice that on March 24, 2016 and April 8, 2016, Gregory and Beverly Swecker submitted Motions for Enforcement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 824, against Midland Power Cooperative and Central Iowa Power Cooperative.
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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 26, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Mesquite Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 26, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Mesquite Solar 3, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 26, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Part 284 Natural Gas Pipeline 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 date(s). 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:
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Record of decision.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), acting as joint lead agencies, issued the Proposed Southline Transmission Line Project (Project) Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0474) on November 6, 2015. The Agency Preferred Alternative developed by Western and the BLM through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and described in the Final EIS is summarized in this Record of Decision (ROD). This alternative is also the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for most of the Project. One segment in the New Build Section and some local alternatives in the Upgrade Section were selected that reduce substantial existing resource conflicts while creating only minor new impacts. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted.
Since the BLM and Western were joint lead agencies in the preparation of the EIS, each agency will issue its own ROD(s) addressing the overall Project and the specific matters within its jurisdiction and authority. This ROD constitutes Western's decision with respect to the alternatives considered in the Final EIS.
Western has selected the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS as the route for the Project. This decision on the route will enable design and engineering activities to proceed. This ROD also commits Western and Southline Transmission, LLC (Southline) to implement the proponent-committed environmental measures (PCEMs) identified in table 2-8, Project PCEMs by Resource, of the Final EIS. Selection of the Agency Preferred Alternative will also allow detailed Project costs to be developed, which are necessary for future participation and financing decisions. This ROD does not make decisions about Western's participation in the Project or financing. Those decisions are contingent on the successful development of participation agreements and financial underwriting, and would be recorded in a second ROD.
For information on Western's participation in the Project contact Stacey Harris, Public Utilities Specialist, Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP) Office A0700, Headquarters Office, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (720) 962-7714, facsimile (720) 962-7083, email
For general information on the Department of Energy (DOE) NEPA process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.
Southline, a subsidiary of Hunt Power, LP, is the Project proponent. Black Forest Partners, LP, is the manager for the Project. In March 2011, Southline submitted a Statement of Interest to Western for consideration of its Project. As part of their Project, Southline proposed the upgrade of approximately 120 miles of Western's existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kilovolt (kV) single-circuit transmission lines to a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line (Upgrade Section) using existing rights-of-way (ROWs). The New Build Section of the Project would include 240 miles of new 345-kV double-circuit transmission line on new ROWs between Afton Substation in New Mexico and Apache Substation in Arizona. In addition, Southline requested that Western consider providing financing for the Project using the borrowing authority provided to Western under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 amendment of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984. Southline's proposal prompted Western to initiate an EIS process to determine the environmental impacts of the Project and alternatives to inform Western's decisions regarding the Project.
Southline also filed a ROW application with the BLM pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, proposing to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a high-voltage electric transmission line on land managed by the BLM. The BLM initiated its own NEPA process to address whether to grant a ROW permit. Because both agencies had NEPA decisions to consider, Western and the BLM agreed to be joint lead agencies in accordance with NEPA, 40 CFR 1501.5(b), for the purpose of preparing the EIS for the Project. The agencies issued the Final EIS for the Project on November 6, 2015. Each agency will issue its own ROD(s) addressing the overall Project and the specific matters within its jurisdiction and authority. This ROD constitutes Western's decision with respect to the alternatives considered in the Final EIS.
The Project includes:
The New Build Section (Afton-Apache), which includes construction and operation of:
• Approximately 205 miles of 345-kV double-circuit electric transmission line in New Mexico and Arizona with a planned bidirectional capacity of up to 1,000 MW. This section is defined by endpoints at the existing Afton Substation, south of Las Cruces in Doña Ana County, New Mexico, and the existing Apache Substation, south of Willcox in Cochise County, Arizona;
• Approximately 5 miles of 345-kV single-circuit electric transmission line between the existing Afton Substation and the existing Luna-Diablo 345-kV transmission line. This segment of the Project is included in the analysis, but development of this segment would be determined at a later date;
• Approximately 30 miles of 345-kV double-circuit electric transmission line between New Mexico State Route 9 and Interstate 10 east of Deming in Luna County, New Mexico, to provide access for potential renewable energy generation sources in southern New Mexico. This segment of the Project is included in the analysis, but development of this segment would be determined at a later date;
• A new substation in Luna County, New Mexico (proposed Midpoint Substation), to provide an intermediate connection point for future interconnection requests; and
• Substation expansion for installation of new communications equipment at, and connection to, two existing substations in New Mexico and one in Arizona.
The Upgrade Section (Apache-Saguaro), which would replace and
• Replacing 120 miles of Western's existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV single-circuit wood-pole H-frame electric transmission lines with a 230-kV double-circuit electric steel-pole transmission line. This section is defined by endpoints at the existing Apache Substation, south of Willcox in Cochise County, Arizona, to the existing Saguaro Substation, northwest of Tucson in Pima County, Arizona;
• Approximately 2 miles of new-build double-circuit 230-kV electric transmission line to interconnect with the existing Tucson Electric Power Company Vail Substation located southeast of Tucson and just north of the existing 115-kV Tucson-Apache line; and
• Connection to and upgrading, modification, and expansion of 12 existing substations in southern Arizona, including installation of new bays, transformers, breakers, switches, communications equipment, and related facilities associated with the voltage increase and compatibility with existing substations. Depending on design and engineering considerations, some substation expansions may require separate yards.
Based on a series of public meetings, routing workshops and meetings with local, State, and other Federal agencies prior to developing their Project, Southline published a Project routing study (April 2012). Many different route segments were identified and analyzed during this process. The route segments were designed to maximize the paralleling of existing linear infrastructure, maximize use of existing access roads, and identify and reject route segments with substantial environmental conflicts. This process resulted in a `Proponent Preferred' or northern route, and a `Proponent Alternative' or southern route, for the New Build Section. Although other options were considered, rebuilding the existing Western lines was the only option that preserved connectivity with the 12 existing substations in southern Arizona, an important feature of the Project.
Southline presented the Proponent Preferred and Proponent Alternative routes to the BLM with their application for a ROW grant and these alternatives were analyzed in the NEPA process. Because Western and BLM participated in Southline's routing study and public outreach, they each understood why various route segments were selected and rejected. Both agencies analyzed both of the Southline proponent alternatives and the No Action Alternative, and used the NEPA process to identify other potentially reasonable, viable alternatives. Due to Southline's thorough routing process, extensive stakeholder outreach, and early route screening with Western and the BLM, agency alternatives developed through the NEPA process resulted in only small route variations which could potentially reduce or avoid local resource conflicts.
The 360-mile-long Project was divided into four `route groups', two in the New Build Section and two in the Upgrade Section, with Apache Substation in Arizona being the point separating the two sections and route groups 1 and 2 from route groups 3 and 4. Within the four route groups various sub-routes including segments of the Proponent Preferred and Proponent Alternative were identified. Some of the sub-routes also include local alternatives that were departures from the proponent alternatives due to potential resource conflicts or opportunities identified during the NEPA process. The agencies' alternatives analyses did not result in major new alternatives but did identify local alternatives and route variations that avoided or reduced localized resource conflicts. The division of the Project into smaller sections provided a framework for a more meaningful and localized comparison of resource impacts and provided the agencies with the ability to `mix and match' route segments to create multiple full-length alternatives.
The Agency Preferred Alternative developed in the Final EIS varies somewhat from the one described in the Draft EIS due to consideration and incorporation of comments from the public, interested parties and the agencies. In the New Build Section, the Agency Preferred Alternative consists of a combination of the Proponent Preferred, Proponent Alternative, and local alternative segments. Draft EIS local alternative LD4 would have included the shared use of approximately 50 miles of ROW with the proposed SunZia Project to consolidate linear facility impacts into one utility corridor, an important BLM management objective. However, a Western Electricity Coordinating Council Regional Business Practice standard requires separation between large, main system transmission lines, which could largely negate the environmental benefits of constructing transmission lines in adjacent ROWs. Additionally, if one line were not constructed, the remaining line would traverse previously undeveloped land and create a new utility corridor of its own, precisely the situation the BLM is trying to prevent by consolidating development. Accordingly, the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS was shifted south to another route segment that parallels an existing natural gas pipeline ROW.
Both the Department of Defense and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) expressed concerns about alternatives in the area near Willcox Playa and north and east of Apache Substation. The route selected in the Draft EIS that runs parallel to an existing transmission line east of the playa presented conflicts with wintering sandhill cranes and waterfowl, and routes to Apache Substation on the west side of the playa conflicted with activities on the Buffalo Soldier Electronic Testing Range. Options east of developed agricultural areas near the playa that turned directly west to enter Apache Substation were prepared and analyzed, but were found to conflict with agricultural interests. Ultimately, mitigation of potential effects on sandhill cranes and waterfowl acceptable to the AZGFD was agreed upon and the route on the east side of the Willcox Playa that was originally included as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative was retained.
The Agency Preferred Alternative for the Upgrade Section consists of a combination of the Proponent Preferred, a route variation south of the Tucson International Airport, and local alternatives at Tumamoc Hill and near the Marana Airport. The Agency Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing Western ROWs for the Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache transmission lines while also addressing existing impacts and opportunities where appropriate. The route skirts the edge of the culturally and visually sensitive Tumamoc Hill property and allows the removal of the section of existing line that crosses through the middle of the property, relocates a portion of the existing line to facilitate Pima County future development plans south of Tucson International Airport, relocates a segment of existing line out of the Summit community where development is encroaching on the ROW, and relocates a segment of existing line near the Marana Airport to reduce conflicts with military training operations.
Except for one segment the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for the New Build Section is the same
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative for the Upgrade Section involves an upgrade of the existing single-circuit 115-kV wood pole lines and use of the existing Western ROWs for the entire length of the section from Apache Substation to Saguaro Substation. The existing lines have been operated and maintained for over 60 years and have well-established access roads. New construction disturbance would be minimal and little or no new impacts to environmental resources would occur except that new monopole steel structures would be taller and have an incrementally larger visual impact. Any existing impacts on the human environment are already included in the baseline condition.
Responsible transmission planning also looks for opportunities to reduce existing impacts or address changing attitudes about the values and weights of impacts. Each of the three local alternatives included in the Agency Preferred Alternative would have associated new environmental impacts, but in each case it was determined that the reduction in present or future conflicts more than offset the new impacts.
Minimization of environmental impacts was an integral part of Project routing and planning, and all practicable means have been adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm. Table 2-8 in section 2.4.6, Typical Design Features and Agency Mitigation Measures, of the Final EIS is a compilation of PCEMs that would be implemented to minimize impacts. If the Project moves into the construction phase, this table will be incorporated into the construction contract to ensure the PCEMs are an integral part of the construction process. The PCEMs include design features that minimize impacts, agency identified best management practices, known regulatory and permit requirements, and other project-specific measures developed during the EIS process. As described in section 2.4.1 of the Final EIS, Site Preparation and Preconstruction Activities, Southline and the BLM have developed an extensive Plan of Development (Appendix N to the Final EIS). Numerous framework plans (appendices to the Plan of Development) are being developed that include specific best management practices and resource protection measures that condition the ROW grant. The Plan of Development only applies to activities on BLM-managed public lands. Western may implement applicable provisions of the Plan of Development and its attached framework plans on State and private lands as appropriate.
The Town of Marana, Arizona, in consultation with the AZGFD, requested that a clarification be made to PCEM in table 2-8 concerning a bat colony under the Ina Road bridge. The agencies are incorporating the requested clarification in the BLM Plan of Development and table 2-8. The revised language will read as follows: “To avoid impacting roosting bats at the Ina Road bridge, blasting activities will be restricted to less than 130 decibels (dB) at the project site if possible, and if that is not possible, then blasting activities will occur at night after most bats have left their roost. No blasting will occur in April or May when the maternity colony is present.”
The Benson/San Pedro Valley Chamber of Commerce and J-6/Mescal Community Development Organization also raised questions after the Final EIS was published. Both parties indicated a preference for Local Alternative H, a route developed for analysis based on public comment. Local Alternative H departs from the existing alignment and bypasses Benson and the Mescal residential development on the north before rejoining the existing alignment east of Benson and the Mescal residential development. The parties raised concerns about visual impacts, EMF, and future development in the area, which were all analyzed in the EIS. Local Alternative H was not selected as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative. The existing transmission line has been in place since the early 1950s, and development has been planned around the existing ROW. Moving to Local Alternative H would only shift impacts from one set of landowners to a new set of landowners. Additionally, staying on the existing ROW would use the existing crossing of the San Pedro River, a sensitive environmental resource. The issues expressed by the parties do not present any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.
The BLM, as the main affected Federal land management agency, retained the lead role for Section 7 and Section 106 consultation. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the issuance of a final Biological Opinion on November 10, 2015. The requirements of the Biological Opinion will apply to the entire Project, whether on BLM managed land or not. The Biological Opinion is provided as Appendix M of the Final EIS and can also be found on the Project Web site. Western also participated as an invited signatory in the Section 106 process, which led to a Programmatic Agreement that will govern Section 106 actions as they apply to the Project. The Programmatic Agreement, Appendix L of the Final EIS, is also posted on the Project Web site.
Informed by the analyses and environmental impacts documented in the Final EIS, Western has selected
This ROD was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and U.S. Department of Energy NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the State of Nevada and the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (collectively “Plaintiffs”) in the United States District Court for Nevada:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by May 16, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0195, online at
Zachary Pilchen, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-2812; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address:
This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs seeking to compel the Administrator to take action under CAA section 110(k)(2)-(3). Plaintiffs allege that the Administrator has failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to take final action on the portion of Nevada's SIP submission intended to address the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to take certain specified actions by February 13, 2017 to resolve those claims. See the proposed consent decree for more details. The proposed consent decree also provides for the possibility that circumstances beyond EPA's reasonable control could delay compliance with the February 13, 2017 deadline, and provides a framework for extending that deadline. In addition, the proposed consent decree enumerates Plaintiffs' costs of litigation, including attorney fees, and provides that payment of those costs will constitute a full and complete settlement of all of Plaintiffs' costs in connection with this litigation.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0195) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any
Use of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement with one ability to pay party for recovery of response costs concerning the Yosemite Slough Site in San Francisco, California. The settlement is entered into pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), and it requires the settling party to pay $193,000 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice in the
Pursuant to section 122(i) of CERCLA, EPA will receive written comments relating to this proposed settlement on or before May 16, 2016.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Rachel Tennis, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3746. Comments should reference the Yosemite Slough Site, San Francisco, California and should be addressed to Rachel Tennis at the above address.
Rachel Tennis, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3746; fax: (417) 947-3570; email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives—Health-Effects Research Requirements for Manufacturers, EPA ICR No. 1696.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0297, 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 June 13, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0525, 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.
James W. Caldwell, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9303; fax number: (202) 343-2800; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that 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, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Manufacturers may perform the research independently or may join with other manufacturers to share in the costs for each applicable group. Several research consortiums (groups of manufacturers) have been formed. The largest consortium, organized by the American Petroleum Institute (API), represents most of the manufacturers of baseline gasoline, baseline diesel fuel, baseline fuel additives, and the prominent nonbaseline oxygenated additives for gasoline. The research is structured into three tiers of requirements for each group. Tier 1 requires an emissions characterization and a literature search for information on the health effects of those emissions. Voluminous Tier 1 data for gasoline and diesel fuel were submitted by API and others in 1997. Tier 1 data have been submitted for biodiesel, water/diesel emulsions, several atypical additives, and renewable gasoline and diesel fuels. Tier 2 requires short-term inhalation exposures of laboratory animals to emissions to screen for adverse health effects. Tier 2 data have been submitted for baseline diesel, biodiesel, and water/diesel emulsions. Alternative Tier 2 testing can be required in lieu of standard Tier 2 testing if EPA concludes that such testing would be more appropriate. EPA reached that conclusion with respect to gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends, and alternative requirements were established for the API consortium for baseline gasoline and six gasoline-oxygenate blends. Alternative Tier 2 requirements have also been established for the manganese additive MMT manufactured by the Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly the Ethyl Corporation). Tier 3 provides for follow-up research, at EPA's discretion, when remaining uncertainties as to the significance of observed health effects, welfare effects, and/or emissions exposures from a fuel or fuel/additive mixture interfere with EPA's ability to make reasonable estimates of the potential risks posed by emissions from a fuel or additive. To date, EPA has not imposed any Tier 3 requirements. Under regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 211 of the Clean Air Act, (1) submission of the health-effects information is necessary for a manufacturer to obtain registration of a motor-vehicle gasoline, diesel fuel, or fuel additive, and thus be allowed to introduce that product into commerce, and (2) the information shall not be considered confidential.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting.
Thursday, June 9th, 2016 in the Commission Meeting Room, from 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807;
At the June 9th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council will discuss progress on and issues involving its work program agreed to at its initial meeting on March 9th, 2016. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 7:08 p.m. on Monday, April 11, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(B)).
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 9, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements in its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). That clearance expires on August 31, 2016.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 13, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the TSR, 16 CFR part 310 (OMB Control Number 3084-0097).
The TSR, 16 CFR 310, implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108 (“Telemarketing Act”), as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (“USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107056 (Oct. 25, 2001). The Telemarketing Act seeks to prevent deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices in telemarketing, which, pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, includes calls made to solicit charitable contributions by third-party telemarketers. The Telemarketing Act mandated certain disclosures by telemarketers, and directed the Commission to include recordkeeping requirements in promulgating a rule to prohibit such practices. As required by the Telemarketing Act, the TSR mandates certain disclosures for telephone sales and requires telemarketers to retain certain records regarding advertising, sales, and employees. The required disclosures provide consumers with information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions. The required records are to be made available for inspection by the Commission and other law enforcement personnel to determine compliance with the Rule. Required records may also yield information helpful to measuring and redressing consumer injury stemming from Rule violations.
In 2003, the Commission amended the TSR to include certain new disclosure requirements and to expand the Rule in other ways.
In 2008, the Commission promulgated amendments to the TSR regarding prerecorded calls, 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v), and call abandonment rate calculations, 16 CFR 310.4(b)(4)(i).
In 2010, the Commission published additional amendments taking effect that year to require specific new disclosures in the sale of a “debt relief service,” as that term is defined in section 310.2(m) to include for-profit credit counseling services, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The amendments result in PRA burden for all covered entities—both new and existing respondents—that engage in telemarketing of these services. The amendments, among other things: (1) Applied the TSR to
The estimated burden for recordkeeping is 14,541 hours for all industry members affected by the Rule. The estimated burden for the disclosures that the Rule requires for both the live telemarketing call provisions of the TSR and those regarding prerecorded calls is 1,223,777 hours for all affected industry members and estimated reporting burden is 352 hours. Thus, the total PRA burden is
In calendar year 2015, 22,401 telemarketing entities accessed the Registry. Of these entities, 498 were “exempt” entities obtaining access to data.
Staff estimates that the above-noted 7,041 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule each require approximately one hour per year to file and store records required by the TSR for an annual total of 7,041 burden hours. The Commission staff also estimates that 75 new entrants per year would need to spend 100 hours each developing a recordkeeping system that complies with the TSR for an annual total of 7,500 burden hours.
Staff believes that in the ordinary course of business a substantial majority of sellers and telemarketers make the disclosures the Rule requires because to do so constitutes good business practice. To the extent this is so, the time and financial resources needed to comply with disclosure requirements do not constitute “burden.” 16 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Moreover, many state laws require the same or similar disclosures as the Rule mandates. Thus, the disclosure hours burden attributable solely to the Rule is far less than the total number of hours associated with the disclosures overall. As when the FTC last sought 3-year OMB clearance for this Rule, staff estimates that most of the disclosures the Rule requires would be made in at least 75 percent of telemarketing calls even absent the Rule.
Based on previous assumptions, staff estimates that of the 7,041 telemarketing entities noted above, 3,235 conduct inbound telemarketing.
Consistent with its past practice, staff necessarily has made additional assumptions in estimating burden. From the total volume of outbound and inbound calls, staff first calculated disclosure burden for initial transactions that resulted in sales, derived from external data and/or estimates drawn from a range of calendar years (2001-2012). Staff recognizes that disclosure burdens may still be incurred regardless of whether or not a call results in a sale. Conversely, a substantial percentage of outbound calls result in consumers hanging up before the seller or telemarketer makes the required disclosure(s). However,
For transactions in which a sale is not a precursor to a required disclosure,
Based on industry data and further FTC extrapolations,
Staff bases all ensuing upsell calculations on the volume of additional sales after an initial sale, with the assumption that a consumer is unlikely to be predisposed to an upsell if he or she rejects an initial offer—whether through an outbound or an inbound call. Using industry information, staff assumes an upsell conversion rate of 40% for inbound calls as well as outbound calls.
Based on the above inputs and assumptions, staff estimates that the total time associated with these pre-sale disclosure requirements is 826,389 hours per year: [(2.3 billion outbound calls × 40% lasting the duration × 7 seconds of full pre-sale disclosures ÷ 3,600 (conversion of minutes to hours) × 25% burden = 447,222 hours) + (2.3 billion outbound calls × 60% terminated after 2 seconds of disclosures ÷ 3,600 × 25% burden = 191,667 hours) + (450 million outbound calls resulting in direct sales × 40% upsell conversions × 3 seconds of related disclosures ÷ 3,600 × 25% burden = 37,500 hours) + (1.8 billion inbound calls × 40% upsell conversions × 3 seconds ÷ 3,600 × 25% burden = 150,000 hours)] = 826,389 hours).
The TSR also requires several general sales disclosures in telemarketing calls before the customer pays for goods or services.
Staff estimates that the general sales disclosures for telemarketing calls require 352,695 hours annually. This figure includes the burden for written disclosures (1,078 inbound telemarketing entities estimated to use direct mail
To estimate the time required to provide the general sales disclosures for calls offering debt relief services, staff employs different assumptions and calculations set forth when the debt relief amendments were issued.
To estimate the number of consumers who are delinquent on one or more credit cards, staff assumes that couples constitute a single decision-making unit, as do single adults (widowed, divorced, separated, never married) within each household. According to the most current U.S. Census Bureau data available, there are 162,016,000 decision-making units.
Accordingly, since reciting the general sales disclosures takes eight seconds, staff estimates that the general sales disclosure burden for inbound debt relief calls is 1,774 hours (3,193,433 inbound debt relief calls to decision-making units with at least one delinquent credit card account × 8 seconds ÷ 3,600 × 25% burden).
The general sales disclosures required by § 310.3(a)(1)(i)-(iii) must also be made by sellers and telemarketers for some inbound calls that are excluded from the general media and direct mail exemptions from the TSR for inbound calls;
Staff's estimates for each of these types of non-exempt inbound calls begins by comparing the number of complaints reported to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel system in the most recent complete year to the total number of reported fraud complaints for that year. The resulting percentage of total fraud complaints must be adjusted to reflect the fact that only a relatively small percentage of telemarketing calls are fraudulent. To extrapolate the percentage of fraudulent telemarketing calls, staff divides a Congressional estimate of annual consumer injury from telemarketing fraud (40 billion)
Thus, for the 7,355 Sentinel complaints in 2015 about investment opportunities covered by the TSR,
Altogether, the general sales disclosure burden thus is 370,589 hours (352,695 hours for outbound sales + 1,774 hours for debt relief inbound sales + 16,120 hours for non-exempt inbound sales).
Additional specific disclosures are required if the call involves a prize promotion,
Staff estimates that reciting the specific sales disclosures in each debt relief sales call will take ten seconds, and therefore the disclosure burden associated with the debt relief disclosures is 4,436 hours (3,193,433 outbound debt relief calls × 10 seconds
Thus, the total specific sales disclosure burden is 26,799 hours annually (22,363 for non-debt-relief calls) + 4,436 (for debt relief calls).
Cumulatively, therefore, the total annual burden for all of the sales disclosures is 397,388 hours (370,589 hours general sales disclosures + 26,799 hours specific sales disclosures).
Finally, any entity that accesses the Registry, regardless whether it is paying for access, must submit minimal identifying information to the operator of the Registry. This basic information includes the name, address, and telephone number of the entity; a contact person for the organization; and information about the manner of payment. The entity also must submit a list of the area codes for which it requests information and certify that it is accessing the Registry solely to comply with the provisions of the TSR. If the entity is accessing the Registry on behalf of other seller or telemarketer clients, it has to submit basic identifying information about those clients, a list of the area codes for which it requests information on their behalf, and a certification that the clients are accessing the Registry solely to comply with the TSR.
As it has since the Commission's initial proposal to implement user fees under the TSR, FTC staff estimates that affected entities will require no more than two minutes for each entity to submit this basic information, and anticipates that each entity will have to submit the information annually.
Cumulative of the foregoing components, disclosure burden for new and existing telemarketing entities, including those making debt relief and prerecorded calls,
Thus, total recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting burden is 1,238,670 hours (14,541 hours + 1,223,777 hours + 352 hours).
Assuming a cumulative burden of 7,500 hours a year to set up compliant recordkeeping systems for new telemarketing entities (75 new entrants/year × 100 hours each), and applying to that a skilled labor rate of $26.92/hour,
The estimated annual labor cost for disclosures for all telemarketing entities is $15,578,681. This total is the product of applying an assumed hourly wage rate of $12.73
Estimated labor cost supplying basic identifying information to the Registry operator is $4,481 (352 hours × $12.73 per hour).
Thus, cumulatively for both new and existing telemarketing entities, including prerecorded and debt relief calls, total labor costs are $15,893,001 [($309,839, recordkeeping) + ($15,578,681 disclosure) + ($4,481, reporting)].
Staff believes that the capital and start-up costs associated with the TSR's recordkeeping provisions are de minimis. They mandate that companies maintain records, but not in any particular form. While the requirements necessitate that affected entities have a means of storage, industry members should have that already for business purposes independent of the Rule. Even if an entity finds it necessary to purchase a storage device, the cost is likely to be minimal, especially when annualized over the item's useful life.
Affected entities may need some storage media such as file folders, computer back-up tapes, or paper in order to comply with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements. Although staff believes that most affected entities would maintain the required records in the ordinary course of business, consistent with its prior analyses, staff estimates that the estimated 7,041 telemarketing entities subject to the Rule continue to spend an annual amount of $50 each on office supplies as a result of the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, for a total recordkeeping cost burden for both new and existing telemarketing entities, including those making prerecorded calls, of $352,050.
Consistent with its past practice of applying the disclosure estimates discussed above, and totaling 1,223,777 hours, to a retained estimated commercial calling rate of 6 cents per minute ($3.60 per hour), staff estimates a total of $4,405,597 in telephone charges.
Staff believes that the inbound telemarketing entities choosing to comply with the Rule by making written disclosures incur no additional capital or operating expenses as a result of the Rule's requirements because they are likely to provide written information to prospective customers in the ordinary course of business. Adding the disclosures required by the direct mail exemption to that written information likely requires no supplemental non-labor expenditures.
Thus, cumulatively for both new and existing telemarketing entities, including prerecorded and debt relief calls, total capital and/or other non-labor costs are $4,757,647 ($352,050 (office supplies) + $4,405,597 (telephone charges)).
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 13, 2016. Write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” 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 provided in section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). 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 you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” on your comment and on the envelope, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 13, 2016. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Alternative Fuels Rule. That clearance expires on June 30, 2016.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Alternative Fuels Rule should be directed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 326-2889, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
It is common practice for alternative fuel industry members to determine and monitor fuel ratings in the normal course of their business activities. This is because industry members must determine the fuel ratings of their products in order to monitor quality and to decide how to market them. “Burden” for PRA purposes is defined to exclude effort that would be expended regardless of any regulatory requirement. 5 CFR 1320.2(b)(2). Moreover, as originally anticipated when the Rule was promulgated in 1995, many of the information collection requirements and the originally-estimated hours were associated with one-time start up tasks of implementing standard systems and processes.
Other factors also limit the burden associated with the Rule. Certification may be a one-time event or require only infrequent revision. Disclosures on electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems may be useable for several years. Nonetheless, there is still some burden associated with posting labels. There also will be some minimal burden associated with new or revised certification of fuel ratings and recordkeeping. The burden on vehicle manufacturers is limited because only newly-manufactured vehicles will require label posting and manufacturers produce very few new models each year.
On January 11, 2016, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements and staff's PRA burden estimates associated with the Rule (“January 11, 2016 Notice”). 81 FR 1187. No relevant comments were received.
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2).
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c)).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P134200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 16, 2016. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, HHS.
Announcement of the award of single-source program expansion supplements to the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, Toppenish, WA, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT, to provide expanded and enhanced child abuse prevention activities and family support services that enhance the lives and ensure the safety and well-being of migrant and Native American children and their families.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children's Bureau (CB), announces the award of two single-source program expansion supplements in the amount of $69,481 each to the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, Toppenish, WA, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT, to support expansion activities to better meet the national need for prevention services to migrant and Native American children and their families.
The expansion supplement is for a project period of 12 months from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Rosie Gomez, Children's Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-7403; Email:
These grantees have developed unique approaches to address child abuse and neglect prevention efforts in their communities, with independently rigorous evaluation approaches and similar program outcomes:
• Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic provides Spanish-language parenting education classes targeting low-income, Spanish-speaking migrant families. The goals of the parenting education program are to prevent child abuse and neglect and promote healthy family development, increase family and community protective factors and resilience, and demonstrate the benefits of collaboration between child/family serving programs.
• The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Parent Partner Project provides three evidence-informed practices: (1) The Parent Partner model; (2) Positive Indian Parenting; and (3) Mind Body Awareness Mindfulness Training. The target population is American Indian families residing on the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwestern Montana who have substantiated cases of abuse or neglect or who are providing foster care services to children from such families.
Both organizations provide effective and comprehensive child abuse prevention activities and family support services that enhance the lives and ensure the safety and well-being of migrant and Native American children and their families. The supplemental funding will afford these entities the opportunity to provide expanded and enhanced child abuse prevention activities and family support services
Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5116
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement to University of Denver (Colorado Seminary)to expand the Capacity Building Center for Tribes.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children's Bureau (CB), announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement in the amount of $350,000 to University of Denver (Colorado Seminary), Denver, CO, for the expansion of the Capacity Building Center for Tribes (CBCT) to provide expanded tailored technical assistance to Tribes across the nation and allow for expanded and enhanced collaboration with the other centers that form the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative.
The expansion supplement will support project activities from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Roshanda Shoulders, Tribal Specialist, Children's Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-8709; Email:
CB announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement in the amount of $350,000 to University of Denver (Colorado Seminary), Denver, CO, for the expansion of the Capacity Building Center for Tribes (CBCT) to provide expanded tailored technical assistance to Tribes across the nation and allow for expanded and enhanced collaboration with the other centers that form the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. The Center will also utilize the supplemental funds to increase its collaborative efforts with other CB supported capacity building providers to improve child welfare systems in achieving measurable, sustainable systemic change that results in greater safety, permanency, and well-being for children, youth, and families.
The supplement also will support successful engagement and support to Title IV-E and IV-B Tribes in continuous quality improvement efforts, the quality of permanency efforts, and assist Tribal agencies in designing, implementing and testing innovations to build evidence of effective practices, interventions, and models. The CBCT will also utilize the supplement to expand and enhance its collaborative work and activities with and within the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative and the Center for States and Center for Courts, specifically, to support joint work toward shared outcomes.
University of Denver (Colorado Seminary) is uniquely positioned to expand this project as a result of their work as the current grantee to launch and operate the Capacity Building Center for Tribes. The project is currently in its inaugural year.
The statutory authority is the Adoption Opportunities Program, section 203 (42 U.S.C. 5113) of the
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, HHS.
Announcement of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to the American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education, Washington, DC, to provide expanded tailored capacity building services to state and tribal Court Improvement Programs and to enhance collaborative work with the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children's Bureau (CB) announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement in the amount of $500,000 to the American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education, Washington, DC, to provide expanded tailored capacity building services to state and tribal Court Improvement Programs and to enhance collaborative work with the other CB funded capacity building providers through the national Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Courts (CBCC).
The period of support is from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
David Kelly, Children's Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-8709; Email:
The Children's Bureau (CB) has awarded a single-source program expansion supplement to provide expanded tailored capacity building services to state and tribal Court Improvement Programs and to enhance collaborative work with the other CB-funded capacity building providers through the national Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Courts (CBCC). The CBCC's ability to respond to federal priorities to improve safety, permanency, and well-being of children and youth who have experienced maltreatment, exposure to violence, and/or trauma will be enhanced by this augmented ability to increase tailored services provision to state and tribal Court Improvement Programs and enhance collaborative work with other CB capacity building providers. The grantee is the recipient of a cooperative agreement to administer the national CBCC. The grantee has been providing technical assistance services through a cooperative agreement since September 30, 2014.
Section 105 of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 5106).
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement to Zero to Three for the expansion of the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children's Bureau (CB), announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement in the amount of $3,000,000 to Zero to Three, Washington, DC, for the expansion of the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams to promote collaboration with the courts and state, county, or tribal child welfare systems, and other community-based agencies to increase their capacity to incorporate evidence-based practices (EBPs) to strengthen parenting and promote healthy development for infants and toddlers involved with child welfare.
Supplemental funds will support activities from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2017.
David Kelly, Court Improvement Specialist, Children's Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-8709; Email:
Award funds will support the development of additional demonstration sites and the development of resources and guides designed to help infuse promising practices and strategies into child welfare practice nationally. Zero to Three is uniquely positioned to expand this project as a result of their work as the current grantee to launch and operate the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams. The project is currently in its inaugural year.
The statutory authority is section 105(b)(5) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(5)), as most recently amended by CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Technical Assistance (TA) Project to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) to support training and technical assistance
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Family Violence and Prevention Services (DFVPS) announces the award of $175,000 as a single-source grant to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) in Harrisburg, PA, to support activities by Women of Color Network Inc. (WOCN). The grantee, funded under the FVPSA program, is a technical assistance provider that assists FVPSA service providers to build the capacity of domestic violence programs.
The period of support for the single-source program expansion supplement is September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.
Shena Williams, Senior Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-5932; Email:
Grant funds will support WOCN, through the PCADV, to provide training and technical assistance to individuals and organizations dedicated to enhancing services to those in historically marginalized communities in domestic violence programs across the country.
The WOCN will provide technical assistance and training to FVPSA state administrators to strengthen collaborative efforts of state administrators and community-based organizations for the purposes of improving services to victims of domestic violence in diverse and historically marginalized communities.
This project may include such activities as listening sessions to identify specific needs, challenges and barriers to funding, services and collaborative efforts; documentation of technical assistance needs; and development of state-specific technical assistance plans and written recommendations for fostering and sustaining collaborative partnerships and capacity-building activities.
In addition to the issue of capacity-building activities, the grantee will provide support and training to address the identified barriers including gaps in leadership development. Training will include such activities as targeted technical assistance for state administrators, graduates and community-based organizations; resource sharing for the FVPSA state administrators, graduates and community-based organizations; evaluation and documentation of how the technical assistance and processes improved the skills, access, engagement and/or participation of the graduates, state administrators and community-based organizations.
Section 310 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as amended by Section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-320.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the notice that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice published March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13371). Submit either electronic or written comments by May 13, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft EA and preliminary FONSI at either
Brinda Dass, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-2), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8247, email:
In the
The Agency has received requests for a 90-day extension of the comment period for the notice. Each request conveyed concern that the current 30-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice for 30 days, until May 13, 2016. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying the Agency's decision on whether to finalize these documents or prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
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 Drug Abuse.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public
Send your comments by June 13, 2016.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information request is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA developed the Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program in 2007, in an effort to engage with surface transportation entities to establish a “baseline” of security and emergency response operations. This program was initially created for mass transit systems (including both rail and bus operations) and passenger railroads (MT/PR). However, based on the success of the program, TSA developed the Highway (HWY) BASE program in 2012, with full implementation in 2013. This incorporated trucking, school bus contractors, school districts, and over-the-road motor coach. This voluntary program has served to evaluate and collect physical and operational preparedness information and critical assets and key point-of-contact lists. The program also reviews emergency procedures and domain awareness training and provides an opportunity to share industry best practices.
TSA needs complete and consistent data about these transportation security programs to perform it mission. While many MT/PR and HWY entities have security and emergency response plans or protocols in place, the BASE program is the only available method which consistently evaluates implementation of these programs, their content, and benchmarks. The program provides TSA with real-time information on current security practices within the MT/PR and HWY modes of the surface transportation sector. This information also allows TSA to dynamically adapt its programs and recommendations to the changing threat within the context of the current security posture of these entities. Without this information, TSA's ability to perform its security mission would be severely hindered. Additionally, the assessment process fosters relationships critical to TSA's ability to interact effectively with those surface transportation entities participating in the BASE program.
On August 21, 2015, OMB approved TSA's request to combine two previously approved BASE ICRs (1652-0061 and 1652-0062) into a single request.
In carrying out the voluntary BASE program, TSA's Transportation Security
During BASE site visits of MT/PR and HWY entities, TSIs-S collect information and complete a BASE checklist from the review of each entity's documents, plans, and procedures. They also interview appropriate entity personnel and conduct system observations prompted by questions raised during the document review and interview stages. TSA conducts the interviews to ascertain and clarify information on security measures and to identify security gaps. The interviews also provide TSA with a method to encourage the surface transportation entities participating in the BASE reviews to be diligent in effecting and maintaining security-related improvements.
While TSA has not set a limit on the number of BASE program reviews to conduct, TSA estimates it will conduct approximately 40 MT/PR BASE reviews and approximately 50 HWY BASE reviews on an annual basis. TSA estimates that the hour burden per MT/PR entity to engage its security and/or operating officials with inspectors in the interactive BASE program review process is approximately 11.7 hours. Also, TSA estimates that the hour burden per HWY entity to engage its security and/or operating officials with inspectors in the interactive BASE program review process is approximately 1.8 hours. Thus, the total annual hour burden for the MT/PR BASE program review is 468 hours annually (40 × 11.7 hours = 468 hours) and for HWY BASE 90 hours annually (50 × 1.8 hours = 90 hours).
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The name of the appendix will be changed to: Ginnie Mae Systems Access Appendix will have six (6) clearing defined sections. They are as follows:
Appendix III-29: Instructions: Incorporates language to make the Appendix applicable to Ginnie Mae's GinnieNET system as well as the Ginnie Mae GMEP system. It clarifies the relationship of the Appendix to Ginnie Mae form HUD 11708.
Appendix III-29 (A): Issuer Security Officer Registration: Incorporates language to make the Appendix applicable to Ginnie Mae's GinnieNET system as well as the Ginnie Mae GMEP system.
Appendix III-29 (B): User Registration for Issuer Only: Incorporates language to ensure the user acknowledgements and signed rules of behavior that encompass the use of the GinnieNET system. Adding a Ginnie NET section with two (2) check boxes to the following types of GinnieNET functions: GinnieNET RSA SecurID Token Holder and GinnieNET User.
Appendix III-29 (C): Custodian Security Officer Registration: Incorporates language to make the Appendix applicable to Ginnie Mae's GinnieNET system as well as the Ginnie Mae GMEP system.
Appendix III-29 (D): Custodian User Registration: Incorporates language to ensure the user acknowledgements and signed rules of behavior that encompass the use of the GinnieNET system. Adding a check box for GinnieNET SecurID Token Holder.
Appendix III-29 (E): RSA SecurID Token Request New form to be used by Ginnie Mae Issuers and Document Custodians to obtain the required RSA Token and identify user access
As a result of the revisions to Appendix III-29, Ginnie Mae will be eliminating the use of Appendix III-14 (Enrollment Administrator and GinnieNET Authorized Signatories.
With the implementation of Ginnie Mae's streamlined investor reporting under the revised Appendix VI-19, the
Due to the increase in the number of Ginnie Mae active issuers in our HMBS program, Ginnie Mae is now including Forms 11705H/11706H—Appendix III-28 (Schedule of Subscribers and Ginnie Mae Guaranty Agreement and Pool Participations—HMBS Pooling Import File Layout in our collection. This form combines both the 11705H and 11706H (Appendix III-28) into one import file layout.
The addition of the new sections Appendix III-29, additions of Appendix VI-14, Appendix IV-16, Appendix III-28 and the elimination of Appendix III-14, Appendix VII-1 and Appendix VII-2 is the reason for the change of burden hours.
The initially scheduled name change of Appendix III-13 from Electronic Data Interchanges System Agreement to Electronic Data Transfer Agreement and the addition of the phrase: Law of the District of Columbia in Section 4.7 will take place at a later date.
There are 20 forms and appendices in our collection which are volume driven rather than participant driven: These have increased as our portfolio has grown.
Included in the Guide are the appendices, forms, and documents necessary for Ginnie Mae to properly administer its MBS programs.
While most of the calculations are based on number of respondents multiplied by the frequency of response, there are several items whose calculations are based on volume.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of decisions made by the Department in two competitions in Fiscal Year 2015 (FY 2015) pursuant to two Notices of Funding Availability for the Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program. This
For questions concerning the awards, contact the Area Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) serving the area in which the project is located. The names and addresses can be found at
The ICDBG program provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to develop viable Indian and Alaska Native communities, including the creation of decent housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes as defined in 24 CFR 1003.4. For FY 2015, Congress established a set aside of funds specifically for the remediation and prevention of mold in tribal housing.
The FY 2015 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in competitions posted on HUD's Web site on April 16, 2015, and August 28, 2015, respectively. Applications were scored and selected for funding based on the selection criteria in those notices.
The amount appropriated for ICDBG mold remediation and prevention in FY 2015, was $6,000,000. Combined with $6,400,000 in mold remediation and prevention funds carried over from FY 2014, $12,400,000 made available for mold remediation and prevention in FY 2015.
Congress appropriated $60,000,000 for the ICDBG program in FY 2015. Of the amount appropriated, $3,960,000 was retained to fund non-competitive ICDBG imminent threat grants. Combined with $2,816,810 in funds carried over from FY 2014, the allocations for the Area ONAP geographic jurisdictions for all types of ICDBG-eligible activities were:
In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 18 awards made specifically for mold remediation and prevention in Appendix A and the 75 awards made for all types of ICDBG activities in Appendix B to this document.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Natalia Yee, Director, Single Family Insurance Operations Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3506; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4186, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
James Höemann, Deputy Director, State and Small Cities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email James Höemann at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice, correction.
On March 23, 2016, HUD published its 60-day notice in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool for Public Housing Agencies. In Section III of the notice, HUD inadvertently referred to the applicable assessment tool as the Assessment Tool for States and Insular Areas. This notice acknowledges the error in the notice, advises that HUD meant to reference the Assessment for Public Housing Agencies, and corrects this error.
Dustin Parks, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 5249, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-1112 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons can access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
On March 23, 2016, at 81 FR 15549, HUD published its notice soliciting comment for a period of 60-days, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, on its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool for Public Housing Agencies (PHA Assessment Tool). This is the assessment tool to be used by public housing agencies (PHAs) in evaluating fair housing choice and access to opportunity in their jurisdictions, to identify barriers to fair housing choice and opportunity at the local and regional levels, and to set fair housing goals to overcome such barriers and advance fair housing choice. The PHA Assessment Tool is one of three assessment tools for which HUD has published notices for 60-day public comment. The other two assessment tools are the State and Insular Area Assessment Tool (81 FR 12921, published March 11, 2016) and the Local Government Assessment Tool (81 FR 15546, published March 23, 2016).
In Section III of the notice, at 81 FR 15553, third column, HUD inadvertently referred to the applicable assessment tool as the State and Insular Area Assessment Tool. HUD intended the reference to be the PHA Assessment Tool. This notice acknowledges the error, advises that HUD meant to reference the PHA Assessment Tool, and corrects this error.
In the
The public reporting burden for the proposed PHA Assessment Tool is estimated to include the time for reviewing the instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of extension.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on a collection of information requests that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the paperwork requirements in the regulations under title 30,
Submit written comments on or before June 13, 2016 in order to assure consideration.
You may submit comments on this ICR to ONRR by using one of the following three methods (please reference “ICR 1012-0010” in your comments):
1. Electronically go to
2. Email comments to Mr. Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, at
3. Hand-carry or mail comments, using an overnight courier service, to ONRR. Our courier address is Building 85, Room A-614, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225.
For any questions, contact Mr. Luis Aguilar, telephone (303) 231-3418, or email at
The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary's responsibility, according to various laws, is to manage mineral resource production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected under those laws. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at
The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the minerals revenue management functions for the Secretary and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands.
You can find the information collections covered in this ICR at 30 CFR parts:
• 1202, subpart H, which pertains to geothermal resources royalties.
• 1206, subparts F, H, and J, which pertain to product valuation of Federal coal, geothermal resources, and Indian coal.
• 1210, subparts E and H, which pertain to production and royalty reports on solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1212, subparts E and H, which pertain to recordkeeping of reports and files for solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1217, subparts E and H, which pertain to audits and inspections of coal, other solid minerals, and geothermal resources leases.
• 1218, subparts E and F, which pertain to royalty, rental, bonuses, and other monies payment for solid minerals and geothermal resources.
All data reported is subject to subsequent audit and adjustment.
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee, or designee, must report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals.
ONRR, acting for the Secretary, uses the information that we collect to ensure
Furthermore, ONRR proposes implementing a new form ONRR-4440, Solid Minerals Sales Summary, to collect current data elements in a standardized format to support ONRR's compliance efforts for all solid mineral leases. Lessees of coal and other solid minerals from Federal and Indian leases will submit required data on form ONRR-4440. Lessees will find the required data elements in the table in 30 CFR 1210.202. The sales summary information will aid ONRR in determining a lessee's compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and sales contracts.
Currently, lessees are required to submit sales summaries electronically where possible by submitting internally generated information as an attachment to an email message using any format they have available. Over 95 percent of lessees use this submittal method. ONRR is developing an automated system that would receive and store the sales summary data that lessees submit on the proposed form ONRR-4440. Lessees would submit, and ONRR would utilize the submitted data in two phases. Phase 1 would require lessees to submit proposed form ONRR-4440 using the current submittal method. Phase 2 would require lessees to submit proposed form ONRR-4440 electronically. This submittal process would be similar to the current process that ONRR requires lessees to follow to submit form ONRR-4430, Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report. The proposed standard collection format using available information technology would greatly reduce the number of ONRR site visits, emails, or telephone contacts needed to clarify company-generated sales summary documents.
Producers of coal and other solid minerals from any Federal or Indian lease must submit current form ONRR-4430, Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report, and other associated data formats. These companies also report certain data on form ONRR-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance (OMB Control Number 1012-0004). Producers of coal from any Indian lease must also submit form ONRR-4292, Coal Washing Allowance Report, and form ONRR-4293, Coal Transportation Allowance Report, if they wish to claim allowances on form ONRR-4430. The information ONRR requests are the minimum necessary to carry out our mission and places the least possible burden on respondents.
This ICR also covers some of the information collections for geothermal resources, which ONRR groups by usage (electrical generation, direct use, and byproduct recover), and by disposition of the resources (arm's-length (unaffiliated) contract sales, non-arm's-length contract sales, and no contract sales) within each use group. ONRR relies primarily on data that payors report on form ONRR-2014 for the majority of our business processes, including geothermal information. In addition to using the data to account for royalties that payors report, ONRR uses the data for monthly distribution of mineral revenues and audit and compliance reviews.
We will request OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. We protect the proprietary information that ONRR receives and do not collect items of a sensitive nature. It is mandatory that the reporters submit form ONRR-4430. Also, ONRR requires that reporters submit forms ONRR-4292, ONRR-4293, and ONRR 4440 to obtain benefits for claiming allowances.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements that companies perform in the normal course of business, and that ONRR considers usual and customary. We display the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph in the following chart.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “* * * provide 60-day notice in the
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods that you use to estimate (1) major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, (2) expected useful life of capital equipment, (3) discount rate(s), and (4) the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software that you purchase to prepare for collecting information and monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or to keep records
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-559-561 and 731-TA-1317-1328 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7225.40, 7226.20, and 7226.91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Brazil, China, and Korea. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach preliminary determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by May 23, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 31, 2016.
Effective April 8, 2016.
Mary Messer ((202) 205-3193) or Carolyn Carlson ((202) 205-3002), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of CTC Global Corporation on April 8, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrical conductor composite cores and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Mercury Cable & Energy, Inc., d/b/a Mercury Cable & Energy LLC, d/b/a Energy Technology International Company, Inc., San Juan Capistrano, CA; and Shenzhen Zm Hesheng Power Development Co., Ltd., a/k/a Mercury Composite Co., Ltd., China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3137”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Daimler AG on April 11, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain passenger vehicle automotive wheels. The complaint names as respondents: A-Z Wheels LLC d/b/a UsaRim/UsaRim.com/Eurotech Wheels, San Diego, CA; Galaxy Wheels & Tires, LLC, San Diego, CA; Infobahn International, Inc. d/b/a Infobahn/Eurotech/Eurotech Luxury Wheels/Euro Wheels/UsaRim, San Diego, CA; Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, WA; A Spec Wheels & Tires LLC d/b/a A SPEC Wheels & Tires, Hayward, CA; America Tire Distributors Holdings, Inc., Huntersville, NC; America Tire Distributors, Inc., Huntersville, NC; Onyx Enterprises Int'l, Corp. d/b/a CARiD.COM, Cranbury, NJ; O.E. Wheel Distributors, LLC, Sarasota, FL; Powerwheels Pro, LLC, Waterford, MI; and Trade Union International Inc. d/b/a Topline, Montclair, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3138”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10 and 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 17, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 11, 2014. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 21, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AC
On March 20, 2015, AC
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 27, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and
Also, Biohealth Innovation, Inc., Rockville, MD; Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology (CIMIT), Boston, MA; Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL; Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA; Jade Therapeutics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer, Baltimore, MD; KAI Research, Inc. (KAI), Rockville, MD; Human Effects Modeling, Advanced Technology, Inc., L-3 Communications, San Diego, CA; Maryland Technology Development Corp. (TEDCO), Columbia, MD; and Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
The general areas of MTEC's planned activity are to: (a) enter into an Other Transactions Agreement with the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (the Government) to fund certain research, development, and commercialization efforts conducted in partnership with the Government, the Consortium, and Consortium Members that enhance the medical knowledge and life cycle management of the medical program, and enable the Government to better protect, treat, and optimize Warfighter health and performance across the full spectrum of operations; (b) participate in establishing sound technical and programmatic performance goals based on the needs and requirements of the Government's Technology Objectives and other mission requirements; (c) create programs and secure funding; (d) provide a unified voice that effectively articulates the strategically important role military medical technologies play in current and future military operations; and (e) maximize use of Government and member capabilities and resources for developing critical processes, procedures, drugs, vaccines, and devices that can be transitioned and commercialized for both military and civilian use.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MTEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 9, 2014, MTEC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 24, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 22, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CHEDE-VII intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 6, 2016, CHEDE-VII filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 10, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 15, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Applied Thin Films, Inc., Skokie, IL; Fluorochem, Inc., Azusa, CA; Prime Photonics, LC, Blacksburg, VA; Safety Consulting Engineers, Schauraburg, IL; Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Milford, NH; and Soligie, Inc., Savage, MN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 10, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice of registration.
Stepan Company applied to be registered as a manufacturer of
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Stepan Company to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before June 13, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on January 13, 2016, Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc., 309 Delaware Street, Building 1106, Greenville, South Carolina 29605 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for clinical trials.
In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana), and 7370 (THC), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetics. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On October 1, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Rezik A. Saqer, M.D., (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificates of Registration BS4072637 and FS1975359, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the respective registered locations of 11037 FM 1960 West, Suite B1, Houston, Texas, and 3074 College Park Drive, Conroe, Texas. Show Cause Order, at 1. The Show Cause Order further proposed the denial of any applications to renew or modify either registration, as well as the denial of any other application for a DEA registration.
More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that “[e]ffective September 28, 2015, the Texas Medical Board issued an Order of Temporary Suspension . . . which suspended [Respondent's] medical license,” and therefore, he is currently “without authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, the State in which [he is] registered with” DEA.
On October 2, 2015, a Diversion Investigator served the Show Cause Order by travelling to Respondent's registered location in Houston, and leaving it with a medical assistant, who provided a signed receipt for the Order. Affidavit of DI, at 1. On November 5, 2015, Respondent, through his counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations of the Show Cause Order.
In the same filing which contained his hearing request, Respondent also sought a “brief stay” of the proceeding, stating that a hearing on the Texas Medical Board's (TMB) emergency suspension order was to commence on November 19, 2015. Respondent further expressed his expectation that “[o]n or shortly after that date . . . the [TMB] will issue an order regarding his challenge to the temporary suspension.” Respondent's Req. for Hrng. and Mot. for Brief Stay of Admin. Proceedings, at 1.
The next day, the CALJ denied Respondent's request for a stay and ordered the Government to provide evidence in support of the allegation that Respondent lacks state authority and any accompanying motion, no later than 2 p.m. on November 23, 2015. CALJ Order, at 2 (Nov. 6, 2015). The CALJ also ordered that if the Government filed such a motion, Respondent's Reply would be due no later than 2 p.m. on December 3, 2015.
On November 18, 2015, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition. Therein, the Government argued that it was undisputed that Respondent's medical license has been suspended by the State, and while Respondent argued that the TMB was to hold a hearing on the suspension, whether and when the TMB would lift its order was “a matter of speculation.” Mot. at 3. The Government thus argued that even where a registrant's state authority has been temporarily suspended, revocation of his registration is still warranted because the registrant must possess authority to handle controlled substances under state law in order for the Agency to maintain his registration.
On December 3, 2015, Respondent filed its Opposition to the Government's Motion. Therein, he argued that both the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and DEA's regulations require that if a registrant “requests a hearing, the agency is required to provide such a hearing.” Resp. Opp., at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c); 21 CFR 1301.36(d) and 1301.37(d)). He also argued that “[t]here are no provisions in DEA's regulations or the CSA that allow for summary disposition whereby Respondent's right to a hearing is denied.”
Respondent also argued that the Agency's position that the possession of state authority is a condition for maintaining a DEA registration is based on a misreading of the term “practitioner,”
Finding that “no genuine dispute exists over the fact that the Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances,” the CALJ concluded that because Respondent lacks such authority, “Agency precedent dictates that he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.” Order Granting Govt. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 9. Noting that “there is no contested factual matter adducible at a hearing that would, in the Agency's view, provide authority to allow the Respondent to continue to hold his” registration, the CALJ granted the Government's motion for summary disposition and recommended that his “registration be revoked” and that “any pending applications for renewal be denied.”
Respondent filed Exceptions to the CALJ's Order and the Government filed a Response to Respondent's Exceptions. Thereafter, the record was forwarded to me for Final Agency Action. Having considered the record including Respondent's Exceptions, I adopt the CALJ's finding that Respondent lacks authority under Texas law to handle controlled substances, and his conclusion of law that Respondent is not entitled to maintain his registration. For reasons explained below, I will also adopt the ALJ's recommendation but only with respect to Respondent's Certificate of Registration BS4072637. I make the following findings.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration BS4072637, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the address of 11037 FM 1960 West, Suite B1, Houston, Texas. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Attachment 2. Under this registration, Respondent is also authorized to treat up to 100 patients as a DATA-waived physician.
Respondent also previously held DEA Certificate of Registration FS1975359, pursuant to which he was authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the address of 3074 College Park Drive, Conroe, Texas. Mot. for. Summ. Disp., at Attachment 3. This registration was due to expire on February 29, 2016,
Respondent is also the holder of Texas Medical License No. K-2282.
As the basis for the Order, the Panel found that on September 22, 2015, a search warrant was executed at a pain management clinic owned by Respondent, during which DEA agents “obtained evidence establishing that Respondent pre-signed treatment notes, pre-signed prescriptions and illegally maintained schedule II controlled substances in his personal office.”
The Panel concluded that “Respondent's continued practice of medicine, including improper and illegal activities related to his operation of a pain management clinic, and including the method and manner in which controlled substances were prescribed and maintained, poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”
On November 19, 2015, the Disciplinary Panel conducted a hearing at which Respondent appeared and was represented by counsel.
As explained above, in his Opposition to the Government's Motion, Respondent contends that because he requested a hearing, under the Agency's regulation, the Agency was required to provide him with a hearing. Opp. at 1-3. He further contends that there are no provisions in either the CSA or the Agency's regulations that allow for summary disposition, thereby denying him his right to a hearing.
However, numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have held that even where a statute directs an agency to provide a party with a hearing, the agency can nonetheless resolve the matter on summary disposition when there are no material facts in dispute.
Notably, while Respondent was given the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute as to whether he retains state authority, he could not do so, as even after he was allowed to appear before the Board and challenge the temporary suspension of his license, the Board re-imposed the suspension. However, even in the absence of a disputed material fact, Respondent contends that “summary disposition [was] inappropriate,” because he “intend[ed] to present evidence that his registration is consistent with the public interest notwithstanding the status of [his] state license.” Opp. at 5. The short answer to this argument is that even if Respondent could show that his registration is consistent with the public interest, his lack of state authority precludes his continued registration under the CSA, and it is the Government and not Respondent who decides what ground or grounds to pursue when seeking the revocation of his registration.
Respondent nonetheless maintains that the Agency's rule that a practitioner's loss of his “state authority is an automatic bar to maintaining a DEA registration” is based “on a misreading of the CSA.” Resp. Exceptions, at 1-2. In his Exceptions, Respondent contends that “[f]or proceedings seeking the revocation of a DEA registration, the [A]gency derives its authority from 21 U.S.C. 824, not 21 U.S.C. 823, and 21 U.S.C. 824 does not support the [A]gency's position that it must revoke a DEA registration in all instances where a registrant lacks state authority.”
To be sure, section 824(a) states, in relevant part, that “[a] registration pursuant to section 823 of this title to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance or list I chemical may be suspended or revoked . . . upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the manufacturing, distribution or dispensing of controlled substances or list I chemicals.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Thus, Respondent is correct that section 824 grants the Attorney General discretion and does not mandate the revocation of a “registration in all instances where a registrant lacks state authority.” Resp. Exceptions, at 2.
Indeed, in
Respondent is not, however, a List I chemical distributor. Rather, he is a practitioner, and by contrast to the CSA's provisions applicable to list I distributors, both the CSA's definition of the term “practitioner” and the registration provision applicable to practitioners make clear that a practitioner must be currently authorized to dispense controlled substances by the State in which he practices in order to obtain and maintain a registration.
As for the registration provision applicable to practitioners, it provides, in relevant part, that: “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As the Supreme Court explained in
Thus, the CSA defines “[t]he term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices to . . . dispense . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). As noted above, in his Opposition, Respondent argued that “[t]he use of the disjunctive `or' clearly signals Congress' intent that a practitioner is one who either has state authority or federal authority to prescribe or dispense controlled substances[,]” and that “[h]ad Congress required that a practitioner maintain both state and federal authority to handle controlled substances, it would have used the word `and.'” Resp. Opp. at 4. Continuing, Respondent argued that “[w]hile it is not entirely clear why Congress took this approach . . . the clear statutory language” refutes the Government's argument that “a lack of state licensure [is] an automatic bar to maintaining a DEA registration.”
Respondent is mistaken. As for why Congress used the disjunctive rather than the conjunctive in defining the term practitioner, notwithstanding the absence of any relevant discussion in the CSA's legislative history, there is an explanation. While the overwhelming majority of practitioners who practice medicine (or dentistry and veterinary medicine) are subject to regulation by the State in which they practice their professions, multiple federal Departments and Agencies (
Thus, Congress used the word “or” only to distinguish between those practitioners who practice at federal facilities and are subject to the licensing requirements of the United States,
Respondent further asserts that “[h]ad Congress required that a practitioner maintain both state and federal authority to handle controlled substances, it would have used the word `and.'” Resp. Opp. at 4. Were this the case, any practitioner who is no longer
Respondent further argues that “had Congress wanted the lack of a state license to be an automatic bar to maintaining a DEA registration, it would have used the word `shall' ” rather than “may” in section 824. He argues that “if DEA understood that to be what Congress intended the agency could have added lack of state licensure to one of the grounds for immediate termination of a DEA registration found in 21 CFR 1301.52(a). It chose not too [sic], presumably because DEA knew it had no such authority.” Resp. Opp. at 4-5.
It is not clear, however, why using the word “shall” rather than “may” would make any difference, as section 824(a) grants the Agency authority to either revoke or suspend. Moreover, were it the case that section 824(a) used the word “shall,” the Agency would be mandated to either suspend or revoke a registration upon making one of the enumerated findings, regardless of how persuasive a registrant's showing was on issues of remediation where, as in a proceeding brought under the public interest authority, such a showing is authorized.
As this Agency has previously explained, Section 824(a)'s grant of authority to suspend or revoke a registration applies across all categories of registration, including manufacturers, distributors, importers, exporters, narcotic treatment programs, list I distributors, and practitioners. And it applies to five different grounds for sanctioning a registrant. As the Agency has previously explained, “this general grant of authority in imposing a sanction must be reconciled with the CSA's specific provisions which mandate that a practitioner hold authority under state law in order to obtain and maintain a DEA registration.”
Thus, in
We find Hooper's contention unconvincing. Section 824(a) does state that the [Agency] may “suspend or revoke” a registration, but the statute provides for this sanction in five different circumstances, only one of which is loss of a State license. Because § 823(f) and § 802(21) make clear that a practitioner's registration is dependent upon the practitioner having state authority to dispense controlled substances, the [Agency's] decision to construe § 824(a)(3) as mandating revocation upon suspension of a state license is not an unreasonable interpretation of the CSA. The [Agency's] decision does not “read[ ] the suspension option” out of the statute, because that option may still be available for the other circumstances enumerated in § 824(a).
Indeed, DEA has interpreted the CSA in this manner for nearly 40 years.
The Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner has lost his state authority by virtue of the State's use of summary process and the State has yet to provide a hearing to challenge the suspension.
Respondent argues, however, that “the agency's decision [in
Respondent's reliance on
While the matter was under review, the physician submitted a letter to the ALJ (which was forwarded to the Administrator), in which she asserted that the Medical Board had reinstated her license.
Noting that parties had directed their letters to each other and the ALJ, and that neither party had sought relief from her, the former Administrator directed the Government to file a properly supported motion seeking a final order based on the physician's lack of state authority.
On further review, the former Administrator observed that “it appeared that under Texas law and regulations, Respondent was not entitled to a hearing before the DPS to challenge either the DPS's suspension or the denial of her application for a new registration.”
In short, there was nothing “conjured up” in the Agency's due process rationale, which recognized only that due to the vagaries of Texas law,
Accordingly, I reject Respondent's contentions.
However, the Pharmacist's Manual makes clear that provision applies only “[i]f the registrant acquiring the pharmacy owns at least one other pharmacy
As for Respondent's assertion that the Agency's position “is simply a convenient litigation position designed to prevent a registrant from proving that the underlying state action was erroneous,” not only is this refuted by nearly 40 years of precedent (and hundreds of cases), the Agency has also made clear in multiple cases that a challenge to a state board proceeding must be litigated in the forums provided by the State.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BS4072637 issued to Rezik A. Saqer, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application by Rezik A. Saqer, M.D., for registration in the State of Texas, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant a partially exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/196,203 entitled Vibration Damping Circuit Card Assembly to TopLine Corporation, having its principal place of business in Irvine, CA. The patent rights in these invention have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Mr. James J. Mcgroary, Chief Patent Counsel/LS01, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-0013.
Mr. Sammy A. Nabors, Technology Transfer Office/ZP30, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-5226. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant a partially-exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(l)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application, Application No. 14/714,756, titled “Auto-Tracking Antenna Platform,” NASA Case No. DRC-013-031, and any issued patents or continuations-in-part resulting therefrom, to Mobile Antenna Platform Systems, Inc. having its principal place of business in Navarre, Florida. Certain patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR. 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C, Pasadena, CA 91109, (818) 854-7770 (phone), 818-393-2607 (fax).
Mark Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C, Pasadena, CA 91109, (818) 854-7770 (phone), 818-393-2607 (fax). Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application for the renewal of operating license NPF-38, which authorizes Entergy Operations, Inc. (the applicant) to operate the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3). The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate Waterford 3 for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for Waterford 3 expires at midnight on December 18, 2024.
The license renewal application referenced in this document is available on April 14, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0078 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Phyllis Clark, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6447; email:
The NRC has received an application from Entergy Operations, Inc., dated March 23, 2016, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of the
A copy of the license renewal application for Waterford 3 is also available to local residents near the site at the St. Charles Parish Library—East Regional Library, 160 W. Campus Drive, Destrehan, Louisiana 70047.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory issue summary; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2016-01, “Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance for the use of Accreditation in Lieu of Commercial Grade Surveys for Procurement of Laboratory Calibration and Test Services.” This RIS informs addressees of guidance prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute for procurement of calibration and testing services performed by domestic and international laboratories, which the NRC staff has found acceptable for use.
The RIS is available as of April 14, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0188 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• This RIS is also available on the NRC's public Web site at
Alexandra Popova, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2876, email:
The NRC published a notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Generic letter; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the availability of a final generic letter addressing degradation of neutron-absorbing materials in the spent fuel pool (SFP). The NRC has determined that it is necessary to obtain plant-specific information requested in the generic letter so that the NRC can determine if the degradation of the neutron-absorbing materials in the SFP is being managed to maintain reasonable assurance that the materials are capable of performing their intended design
The final generic letter is available as of April 14, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0040 and NRC-2015-0136 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• This generic letter is also available on the NRC's public Web site at
Scott Krepel, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-302-0399, email:
The NRC is issuing a final generic letter, GL-2016-01, addressing degradation of neutron-absorbing materials in the SFP. This generic letter requests information from nuclear power plant licensees demonstrating that credited neutron-absorbing materials in the SFP of power reactors and the fuel storage pool, reactor pool, or other wet locations designed for the purpose of fuel storage, as applicable for non-power reactors, are in compliance with the current licensing and design basis, as well as applicable regulatory requirements, and that there are measures in place to maintain this compliance. The information is being requested so that the NRC can determine if it needs to take any additional licensee-specific regulatory action with respect to neutron-absorbing materials in the spent fuel pool.
The NRC published notices of opportunities for public comment on drafts of this generic letter in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-119 and CP2016-149 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 51 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 18, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-119 and CP2016-149 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as an
3. Comments are due no later than April 18, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 29 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 29 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-120 and CP2016-150 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 29 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 18, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-120 and CP2016-150 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than April 18, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service hereby provides notice that it has filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to change the Mail Classification Schedule provisions that pertain to Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Boxes.
Christopher C. Meyerson, 202-268-7820.
On April 7, 2016, the United States Postal Service® filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) a requested change to the Mail Classification Schedule provisions concerning Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Boxes. Documents pertinent to this request are available at
Pursuant to our authority under section 404(b) and Chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, the Governors establish classification changes to Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes (PMI FREs) and PMI Small Flat Rate Boxes (PMI SFRBs).
PMI FREs and PMI SFRBs are Postal Service-branded mailing containers available at no additional cost and used by customers to send documents and small merchandise items abroad. Currently, the Postal Service dispatches PMI FREs and PMI SFRBs in the letter post stream, while all other PMI items are dispatched in the parcel post stream. This results in PMI FREs and PMI SFRBs being subject to different market and operational characteristics. The Postal Service intends to change the dispatch stream for PMI FREs and PMI SFRBs to the international parcel post stream. This change would allow PMI FREs and PMI SFRBs to receive expanded access to tracking services and insurance, which are not routinely
We direct management to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission appropriate notice of these classification changes. The changes in classification set forth herein shall be effective on June 3, 2016.
By The Governors:
Notice of annual meeting.
The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was created by Title VI of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, is announcing its annual public meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Foundation to engage with its stakeholders and receive public input on its efforts. The meeting will include an organizational update, project updates, open Q & A and the opportunity for public commentary.
The public meeting will be held on May 26, 2016, from 10 a.m. until 12 noon. Registration to attend the meeting and requests for oral presentation must be received by May 18, 2016. See the
The public meeting will be held at 901 E St. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Entrance for the meeting is located on 9th St. NW., between F St. NW. and E St. NW.
Dr. Nancy Beck, Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, 202-828-1205,
The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA (the Foundation) is an independent 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization created by Congress to advance the mission of FDA to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development; accelerate innovation; and enhance product safety. With the ultimate goal of improving public health, the Foundation provides a unique opportunity for different sectors (FDA, patient groups, academia, other government entities, and industry) to work together in a transparent way to create exciting new research projects to advance regulatory science.
The Foundation acts as a neutral third party to establish novel, scientific collaborations. Much like any other independently developed information, FDA evaluates the scientific information from these collaborations to determine how Reagan-Udall Foundation projects can help the Agency to fulfill its mission.
The Foundation's programmatic efforts are designed to improve the existing scientific tools (methods) used to evaluate products as well as foster the development of innovative tools and approaches. This is exemplified in the Foundation's projects including: The Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance (IMEDS) Program, which develops and evaluates methods for using observational electronic health care data for postmarket evidence generation, including postmarket safety surveillance; the Big Data for Patients (BD4P) Program, which is a data science training program for patient advocates in the science, concepts, uses, and impact of big data on patients; and the Critical Path to Tuberculosis Drug Regimens Project, which looks at novel approaches to development and review of tuberculosis combination therapies, including strategies for engaging communities in the research process. The Foundation is currently exploring potential new projects as well. One of those projects is the Food Safety Innovation Consortium, to advance regulatory science in the food safety arena. Another area under development involves examining ways to improve the availability and clarity of information on the request process for individual expanded access (compassionate use) for drugs that have not yet been approved by the FDA.
If you wish to attend the meeting, visit:
Interested persons are welcome to present comments at the public meeting, provided they are submitted by May 18, 2016. Comments are scheduled to begin approximately at 11:40 a.m. Time allotted for comments may be limited to 3 minutes, dependent upon the number of requests received. Submissions must include: Your name, organization, address, telephone number, email, and a brief statement on the general nature of your comments. All submissions should be sent to:
The agenda for the public meeting will be posted on the event page on the Reagan-Udall Web site:
Interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments to the Foundation at any time to
The Foundation plans to make meeting materials and meeting recording available to the public after the meeting. Once available, these materials will be posted on the Reagan-Udall Web site:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form F-7 (17 CFR 239.37) is a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
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.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to revise certain qualification thresholds and fees in Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on April 1, 2016. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise certain qualification thresholds and fees in Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule, the Tiered Fee Schedule for Initiating Participants and BOX Volume Rebate (“BVR”).
Under the Tiered Fee Schedule for Initiating Participants, the Exchange assesses a per contract execution fee to all Primary Improvement Order executions initiated by the particular Initiating Participant. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Initiating Participant's Primary Improvement Order volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The current tiered fee schedule for Initiating Participants is as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adjust the percentage thresholds in Tiers 3 through 5. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to raise the fee associated with Tier 5 from $0.03 to $0.05. The new Tiered Fee Schedule for Initiating Participants set forth in Section I.B.1. of the BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:
Next, the Exchange proposes to revise certain qualification thresholds in the BVR. Under the current BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for all PIP Orders and COPIP orders of 100 contracts and under. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
The current per contract rebate for Participants in PIP and COPIP Transactions under the BVR is:
The Exchange proposes to adjust the BVR percentage threshold for Tier 3 to “0.340% to 0.99%” and Tier 4 to “1.00% and Above.” The quantity submitted will continue to be calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
The new BVR set forth in Section I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:
Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to remove reference and information relating to Mini Options, as the Exchange no longer lists or trades Mini Options and has no current plans to do so.
The Exchange added rules relating to the listing of Mini Options (options overlying 10 shares of stock) in 2013
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the Tiered Fee Schedule for Initiating Participants in Section I.B.1. of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The reduced fees related to trading activity in BOX Auction Transactions are available to all BOX Options Participants that initiate Auction Transactions, and they may choose whether or not to trade on BOX to take advantage of the discounted fees for doing so. The Exchange also believes adjusting certain percentage thresholds within the tiers and a fee associated with a tier is reasonable and appropriate, as this Tiered Fee Schedule is in place to provide incentives to BOX Participants to submit their customer order into the PIP for potential price improvement. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed thresholds and fees remain competitive when compared to the auction transaction fees on other exchanges.
The Exchange also believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section I.B of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to now amend the BVR. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to amend the BVR, as all Participants have the ability to qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying Participants. Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to continue to provide incentives for Public Customers, which will result in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange.
BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to adjust the monthly Percentage Thresholds of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Options Classes. The volume thresholds and applicable rebates are meant to incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Other exchanges employ similar incentive programs;
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change to remove references and information relating to Mini Options from the Fee Schedule is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as the Exchange no longer lists or trades Mini-option series and has no intention to do so at this time. Thus, removing outmoded references on the Fee Schedule would alleviate potential investor confusion and improve the clarity and transparency of the Fee Schedule. The proposed change is also reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies to all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is simply proposing to revise certain qualification thresholds and fees in the Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the volume based rebates and fees increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Participants to direct their order flow to the exchange, which benefits all participants by providing more trading opportunities and improves competition on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes the removal of references to Mini Options will not impose any burden on competition but will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 5, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds 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. 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.
On February 9, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA rules require that firms synchronize their business clocks in conformity with procedures prescribed by FINRA. Specifically, FINRA Rule 7430 requires that firms synchronize their business clocks that are used for purposes of recording the date and time of any event that must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other FINRA rules (
Given the increasing speed of trading in today's automated markets, FINRA believes the current one second tolerance is no longer appropriate for computer system clocks recording events in NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities, thus FINRA proposed to tighten the synchronization requirement for computer system clocks that record events in NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities by reducing the drift tolerance from one second to 50 milliseconds.
Under a combination of Rule 7430 and the OATS technical specifications, the current one second synchronization standard applies to the recording of the date and time of any event that must be recorded under FINRA By-Laws or rules. In this proposal, FINRA proposed to consolidate and codify the clock synchronization requirements in new Rule 4590 for clarity and ease of reference. This consolidation includes the current provision in the OATS technical specifications that conveys guidance on recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance with the synchronization standard, which would be codified without material change as Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 4590.
FINRA proposed a phased implementation for the 50 millisecond standard.
The Commission received four comment letters on the proposal.
With respect to the scope of events covered under the proposal, FINRA stated in the filing that through a combination of FINRA Rule 7430 and the OATS technical specifications, the current clock synchronization standard already applies to the recording of the date and time of any event that must be recorded under FINRA By-Laws or rules.
With respect to implementation, in the proposal FINRA stated that it has accommodated such concerns in two ways. First, FINRA tailored the proposal so that the 50 millisecond standard would apply only to NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities and not to fixed income securities.
Finally, in the filing, FINRA stated that it believes that it is appropriate and necessary to proceed with the 50 millisecond standard now, rather than forego this proposal in light of the proposed CAT NMS Plan, because the
Two commenters suggested that FINRA should consider differentiating between market participants when setting clock-synchronization standards.
In the filing, FINRA stated that audit trail integrity relies on the ability to accurately sequence events for a given period of time, including events generated by firms that do not engage in high-frequency trading.
After carefully considering the proposed rule change and the comment letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
The Commission agrees with the commenter's observation that clock synchronization is a “critical component of today's market structure.”
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 6.1A related to Extended Trading Hours. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(a)-(j) No change.
(k) Index Values.
The text of the proposed rule change is also 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 Rule 6.1A regarding Extended Trading Hours.
CBOE, in its capacity as reporting authority for VIX, recently announced plans to calculate and make available current values of VIX every 15 seconds during Extended Trading Hours in March 2016. In order to contemplate this Extended Trading Hours index calculation, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.1A(k) to provide while it may not be calculated and disseminated at all times during Extended Trading Hours,
The Exchange notes, pursuant to Rule 6.1A(j)(vi), Trading Permit Holders must continue to disclose to customers the risks associated with trading during Extended Trading Hours, including among other things the possibility of the absence of an updated underlying index and lack of regular trading in the securities underlying the index. No current index value underlying any other index option trading during Extended Trading Hours will be disseminated during or at the close of that trading session, as is the case today.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change does not modify trading rules applicable to Extended Trading Hours. The proposed rule change contemplates the expected calculation of current values of VIX during Extended Trading Hours, which additional information regarding options trading during that trading session removes impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The proposed rule change states that the current values of indexes underlying other options trading during Extended Trading Hours will continue to not be disseminated, and thus has no impact on those options.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposed rule change has no impact on the trading rules applicable to Extended Trading Hours; there will just be
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative on the date that VIX values may become available during Extended Trading Hours, which is expected to be April 15, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change merely allows VIX values to be disseminated during Extended Trading Hours in the same manner as during Regular Trading Hours and therefore, does not raise any unique or novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative as of April 15, 2016.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to introduce new activity based order protections as described in more detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce new risk protections for orders designed to aid members in their risk management by supplementing current price reasonability checks with activity based order protections.
Pursuant to the proposed Market Wide Risk Protection rule, the Exchange's trading system (the “System”) will maintain one or more counting programs on behalf of each member that will count the number of orders entered, and the number of contracts traded on ISE Mercury.
Members will have discretion to establish the applicable time period for each of the counts maintained under the Market Wide Risk Protection, provided that the selected period must be within minimum and maximum parameters established by the Exchange and announced via circular.
The System will trigger the Market Wide Risk Protection when the counting program has determined that the member has either (1) entered during the specified time period a number of orders exceeding its designated allowable order rate, or (2) executed during the specified time period a number of contracts exceeding its designated allowable contract execution rate. In particular, after a member enters an order, or a member's order is executed, the System will look back over the specified time period to determine whether the member has exceeded the threshold that it has set for the total number of orders entered or the total number of contracts traded, as applicable. If the member's threshold has been exceeded, the Market Wide Risk Protection will be triggered and the System will automatically reject all subsequent incoming orders entered by the member on ISE Mercury. In addition, if the member has opted in to this functionality, the System will automatically cancel all of the member's existing orders. The Market Wide Risk Protection will remain engaged until the member manually (
The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Wide Risk Protection will assist members in better managing their risk when trading on ISE Mercury. In particular, the proposed rule change provides functionality that allows members to set risk management thresholds for the number of orders entered or contracts executed on the Exchange during a specified period. This is similar to how other options exchanges have implemented activity-based risk management protections,
The examples below illustrate how the Market Wide Risk Protection would work both for order entry and order execution protections:
Broker Dealer 1 (“BD1”) designates an allowable order rate of 499 orders/1 second.
@0 milliseconds, BD1 enters 200 orders. (Order total: 200 orders)
@450 milliseconds, BD1 enters 250 orders. (Order total: 450 orders)
@950 milliseconds, BD1 enters 50 orders. (Order total: 500 orders)
Market Wide Risk Protection is triggered on ISE Mercury due to exceeding 499 orders in 1 second. All subsequent orders are rejected, and if BD1 has opted in to this functionality, all existing orders are cancelled. BD1 must contact Market Operations to resume trading.
BD1 designates an allowable execution rate of 15,000 contracts/2 seconds.
@0 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 5,000 contracts. (Execution total: 5,000 contracts)
@600 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 10,000 contracts. (Execution total: 15,000 contracts)
@1550 milliseconds, BD1 receives executions for 2,000 contracts. (Execution total: 17,000 contracts)
Market Wide Risk Protection is triggered on ISE Mercury due to exceeding 15,000 contracts in 2 seconds. All subsequent orders are rejected, and if BD1 has opted in to this functionality, all existing orders are cancelled. BD1 must contact Market Operations to resume trading.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by establishing new activity based risk protections for orders. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection mechanism for market maker quotes that removes the member's quotes if a specified number of curtailment events occur during a set time period (“Market Wide Speed Bump”).
The proposed Market Wide Risk Protection is similar to risk management functionality provided by other options exchanges, including, for example, the MIAX Options Exchange (“MIAX”), which recently received Commission approval for its “Risk Protection Monitor” for orders.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the publication date of this notice or within such longer period (1) as the Commission may designate up to 45 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (2) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(a) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
(b) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 605 of Regulation NMS,
The collection of information obligations of Rule 605 apply to all market centers that receive covered orders in national market system securities. The Commission estimates that approximately 132 market centers are subject to the collection of information obligations of Rule 605. Each of these respondents is required to respond to the collection of information on a monthly basis.
The Commission staff estimates that, on average, Rule 605 causes respondents to spend 6 hours per month to collect the data necessary to generate the reports, or 72 hours per year. With an estimated 132 market centers subject to Rule 605, the total data collection time burden to comply with the monthly reporting requirement is estimated to be 9,504 hours per year.
Based on discussions with industry sources, the Commission staff estimates that an individual market center could retain a service provider to prepare a monthly report using the data collected for approximately $2,978 per month. This per-respondent estimate is based on the rate that a market center could expect to obtain if it negotiated on an individual basis. Based on the $2,978 estimate, the monthly cost to the 132 market centers to retain service providers to prepare reports would be $393,096, or an annual cost of approximately $4,717,152.
The collection of information obligation imposed by Rule 605 is mandatory. The response will be available to the public and will not be kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
On December 28, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by SSgA Active Trust (“Trust”), which is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
Neither the Adviser nor the Sub-Adviser is registered as a broker-dealer, but the Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to that broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition of and changes to the Fund's portfolio. The Sub-Adviser is not affiliated with a broker-dealer.
The Fund is an actively managed fund that does not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. The Fund will seek to provide high total return from current income and capital appreciation. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,
The Fund may purchase exchange-traded common stocks and exchange-traded preferred securities of foreign corporations. The Fund's investments in common stock of foreign corporations may also be in the form of ADRs (sponsored and unsponsored, as noted above),
The Fund may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (
While the Adviser and Sub-Adviser, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of the Fund's net assets in the instruments described above, the Adviser and Sub-Adviser may invest up to 20% of the Fund's net assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
The Fund may invest in U.S. Government obligations and U.S. equity securities. The Fund's investments in such U.S. equity securities may include securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) as well as those traded on a securities exchange. The Fund may invest in convertible securities traded on an exchange or OTC.
The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities-lending cash collateral. The Fund may also enter into reverse repurchase agreements, which involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date, and interest payment and which have the characteristics of borrowing. The Fund's exposure to reverse repurchase agreements will be covered by securities having a value equal to or greater than such commitments. Although there is no limit on the percentage of Fund assets that can be used in connection with reverse repurchase agreements, the Fund does not expect to engage, under normal circumstances, in reverse repurchase agreements with respect to more than 10% of its net assets.
In addition to repurchase agreements, the Fund may invest in short-term instruments, including money market instruments
The Fund may lend its portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed 33
The Fund may invest in Restricted Securities. Restricted Securities are securities that are not registered under the Securities Act, but which can be offered and sold to “qualified institutional buyers” under Rule 144A under the Securities Act or securities purchased after the lapse of the appropriate distribution compliance
The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies, including affiliated funds and money market funds, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Fixed Income Securities and U.S. Government obligations. Price information regarding short-term instruments, spot currency transactions, OTC-traded derivative instruments (including options, swaps, and forward currency transactions), and non-exchange-listed equity securities traded in the OTC market (including Restricted Securities, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, OTC equity securities, OTC-traded preferred securities, and OTC-traded convertible securities) is available from major market data vendors.
The Commission also believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares during Regular Trading Hours
In addition, the Intraday Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours. The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange, the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund.
The NAV of the Shares generally will be calculated once daily Monday through Friday as of the close of regular trading on the Exchange, generally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (the “NAV Calculation Time”) on each day that the Exchange is open for trading, based on prices at the NAV Calculation Time. The Fund's Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund that may be downloaded and additional information relating to NAV and other applicable information.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be halted under the conditions specified in BATS Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange states that it prohibits the distribution of material non-public information by its employees. The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to that broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition of and changes to the Fund's portfolio.
Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying shares in exchange-traded investment companies, U.S. equity securities, foreign equity securities, futures, and options via the ISG, from other exchanges who are
The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) All statements and representations made regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
(3) The issuer will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
(4) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(5) Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
(6) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) BATS Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening and After Hours Trading Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(7) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
(8) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
(9) The Fund will enter into CDS agreements only with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness.
(10) The Fund may invest up to 20% of its portfolio in structured securities and junior bank loans in the aggregate.
(11) Under normal circumstances, the Fund will generally seek to invest in corporate bond issuances that have at least $100,000,000 par amount outstanding. Further, component corporate bonds that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the weight of corporate bonds will have a minimum original principal outstanding of $100 million or more.
(12) The Fund may invest in sponsored or unsponsored ADRs; however, not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in unsponsored ADRs.
(13) All exchange-traded instruments, including investment company securities, futures, and options will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in Amendments No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2015-94), as modified by Amendment No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, is hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its SPXPM pilot program through May 3, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.13 No change.
.14 In addition to A.M.-settled Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index options approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 24.9, the Exchange may also list options on the S&P 500 Index whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration (“SPXPM”). The Exchange may also list options on the Mini-SPX Index (“XSP”) whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration (“P.M.-settled”). SPXPM options and P.M.-settled XSP options will be listed for trading for a pilot period ending May 3, 201[6]
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On February 8, 2013, the Exchange received approval of a rule change that established a Pilot Program that allows the Exchange to list options on the S&P 500 Index whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing prices on the last trading day prior to expiration (“SPXPM”).
During the course of the Pilot Program and in support of the extensions of the Pilot Program, the Exchange submits to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) reports regarding the Pilot Program that detail the Exchange's experience with the Pilot Program, pursuant to the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP Approval Order. To date, the Exchange has submitted two annual Pilot Program reports to the Commission, as well as various periodic interim reports, as required by the Commission while the Pilot Program is in effect. The annual reports contain an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The analysis examines trading in Pilot Products as well as trading in the securities that comprise the underlying index. Additionally, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual reports provide analysis of index price volatility and share trading activity. The periodic interim reports contain some, but not all, of the information contained in the annual reports. In providing the annual and periodic interim reports (the “pilot reports”) to the Commission, the Exchange has requested confidential treatment of the pilot reports under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
The pilot reports both contain the following volume and open interest data:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
(2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
(3) monthly volume for each individual series;
(4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
(5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration date; and
(6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
The annual reports also contain the information noted in Items (1) through (6) above for Expiration Friday, A.M.-settled, S&P 500 index options traded on CBOE, as well as the following analysis of trading patterns in the Pilot Products options series in the Pilot Program:
(1) A time series analysis of open interest; and
(2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes.
Finally, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual reports contain the following analysis related to index price changes and underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays:
(1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data includes a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), is provided; and
(2) a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money series. The data includes a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.
The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for randomly selecting the component securities, and sample periods are determined by the Exchange and the Commission. In proposing to extend the Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to abide by the reporting requirements described herein, as well as in the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP Approval Order.
The Exchange proposes the extension of the Pilot Program in order to continue to give the Commission more time to consider the impact of the Pilot Program. To this point, CBOE believes that the Pilot Program has been well-received by its Trading Permit Holders and the investing public, and the Exchange would like to continue to provide investors with the ability to trade SPXPM and P.M.-settled XSP options. All terms regarding the trading of the Pilot Products shall continue to operate as described in the SPXPM Approval Order and the P.M.-settled XSP Approval Order. The Exchange merely proposes herein to extend the term of the Pilot Program to May 3, 2017.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Pilot Program will continue to provide greater opportunities for investors. Further, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any adverse effects or meaningful regulatory concerns from the operation of the Pilot Program. As such, the Exchange believes that the extension of the Pilot Program does not raise any unique or prohibitive regulatory concerns. Also, the Exchange believes that such trading has not, and will not, adversely impact fair and orderly markets on Expiration Fridays for the underlying stocks comprising the
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the continuation of the Pilot Program will impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition because it will continue to apply equally to all CBOE market participants, and the Pilot Products will be available to all CBOE market participants. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the Pilot Program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the Pilot Program has been in operation, it has provided investors with desirable products with which to trade. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any adverse market effects or regulatory concerns with respect to the Pilot Program. The Exchange further does not believe that the proposed extension of the Pilot Program will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to trading on CBOE. To the extent that the continued trading of the Pilot Products may make CBOE a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants may elect to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The existing Pilot Program currently expires on May 3, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay to the extent necessary to allow the proposal to become operative on May 3, 2016 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted after its current expiration date, thereby avoiding investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the Pilot Program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on May 3, 2016.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Form BD is the application form used by firms to apply to the Commission for registration as a broker-dealer, as required by Rule 15b1-1. Form BD also is used by firms other than banks and registered broker-dealers to apply to the Commission for registration as a municipal securities dealer or a government securities broker-dealer. In addition, Form BD is used to change information contained in a previous Form BD filing that becomes inaccurate.
The total industry-wide annual time burden imposed by Form BD is approximately 4,999 hours, based on approximately 13,732 responses (193 initial filings + 13,539 amendments). Each application filed on Form BD requires approximately 2.75 hours to complete and each amended Form BD requires approximately 20 minutes to complete. (193 × 2.75 hours = 531 hours; 13,539 × 0.33 hours = 4,468 hours; 531 hours + 4,468 hours = 4,999 hours.) The staff believes that a broker-dealer would have a Compliance Manager complete and file both applications and amendments on Form BD at a cost of $279/hour. Consequently, the staff estimates that the total internal cost of compliance associated with the annual time burden is approximately $1,394,721 per year ($279 × 4999). There is no external cost burden associated with Rule 15b1-1 and Form BD.
The Commission uses the information disclosed by applicants in Form BD: (1) To determine whether the applicant meets the standards for registration set forth in the provisions of the Exchange Act; (2) to develop a central information resource where members of the public may obtain relevant, up-to-date information about broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers, and government securities broker-dealers, and where the Commission, other regulators, and SROs may obtain information for investigatory purposes in connection with securities litigation; and (3) to develop statistical information about broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers, and government securities broker-dealers. Without the information disclosed in Form BD, the Commission could not effectively implement policy objectives of the Exchange Act with respect to its investor protection function.
Completing and filing Form BD is mandatory in order to engage in broker-dealer activity. Compliance with Rule 15b1-1 does not involve the collection of confidential information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to revise the Complex Order pricing structure and make a clerical correction to Section III of the BOX Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on April 1, 2016. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to adopt a new pricing structure for Complex Orders.
Currently, Complex Orders executed on BOX are assessed differing fees and credits depending on where the Complex Order executes. Complex Orders that executed against orders on the BOX Book are assessed a flat fee depending on the account type of the Participant submitting the order; while Complex Orders that execute against other Complex Orders on the Complex Order Book are assessed a fee or credit
First, the Exchange proposes to revise the Complex Order pricing structure to remove the execution distinction. Specifically, Complex Orders will now be assessed the same fee or credit regardless of whether the Complex Order executes against an Order on the BOX Book or against another Complex Order. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to remove Section III.A. (Complex Orders Executed Against Orders on the BOX Book) and Section III.B. (Complex Orders Executed Against Other Complex Orders) and create a new Section III.A. entitled (All Complex Orders).
The Exchange then proposes to adopt a contra party pricing structure in this new section that will assess transaction fees and credits dependent upon three factors: (i) The account type of the Participant submitting the order; (ii) whether the Participant is a liquidity provider or liquidity taker; and (iii) the account type of the contra party.
The Exchange proposed fee structure for all Complex Orders will be as follows:
For example, if a Public Customer submitted a Complex Order in a Penny Pilot Class (making liquidity), the Public Customer would be credited $0.35 if the Complex Order interacted with a Market Maker's Complex Order and the Market Maker (taking liquidity) would be charged $0.40. To expand on this example, if the Market Maker instead submitted a Complex Order in a Penny Pilot Class (making liquidity), the Market Maker would be credited $0.10 if the order interacted with a Public Customer's order and the Public Customer (taking liquidity) would be credited $0.35.
The Exchange also proposes to make a clerical correction to Section III of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the third paragraph in the introduction to this section references a Market Maker's ADV (Average Daily Volume). The Exchange no longer uses a Participant's ADV to determine volume based tiers for rebates and fees. Instead, the qualification thresholds are based on a percentage of the Participant's volume relative to the account type's overall total industry equity and ETF option volume. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to remove the reference in this sentence to ADV and replace it with “executed volume on BOX.”
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Complex Order Fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. In particular, the proposed Complex Order Fees will allow the Exchange to be competitive with other exchanges and to apply fees and credits in a manner that is equitable among all BOX Participants. The Exchange operates within a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to any other competing exchange if they determine fees at a particular exchange to be excessive. The proposed Complex Order Fees are intended to attract Complex Orders to the Exchange by offering market participants incentives to submit their Complex Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide incentives for market participants to submit Complex Orders, resulting in greater liquidity and ultimately benefiting all Participants trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes revising the Complex Order pricing structure to assess the same fee or credit regardless of whether the Complex Order executes against an Order on the BOX Book or against another Complex Order is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. With the adoption of the proposed Complex Order pricing structure, the Exchange believes it is no longer necessary to differentiate these transaction fees by where the Complex Order executes, and doing so will reduce investor confusion with respect to the applicable Complex Order fees and credits.
The Exchange believes the proposed Complex Order fee structure is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed fee structure is similar to the structure already in place for Complex Orders that execute against other Complex Orders, and simply adds a Make/Take factor. Further, a similar fee structure is already in place for Non-Auction Transactions on the Exchange and has been accepted by both the Commission and the industry.
The Exchange believes that the proposed credits for Public Customers in Complex Orders are reasonable. Under the proposed fee structure, Public Customers will never pay a fee for a Complex Order, but may receive a credit of $0.35 in Penny Pilot Classes and $0.70 in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange believes providing a credit or charging no fee to Public Customers for Complex Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features within the market structure for Public Customer benefit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that charging no fee or providing a credit for Public Customers is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory. Public Customers are less sophisticated than other Participants and the credit will help to attract a high level of Public Customer order flow to the BOX Book and create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all Participants trading on BOX.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to give Public Customers a credit when their Complex Order executes against a non-Public Customer and, accordingly, charge non-Public Customers a higher fee when their Complex Order executes against a Public Customer compared to the fee or rebate they would be assessed if their Complex Order interacts with a non-Public Customer. As stated above, the Exchange aims to improve markets by developing features for the benefit of its Public Customers. Similar to the payment for order flow and other pricing models that have been adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges to attract Public Customer order flow, the Exchange increases fees to non-Public Customers to provide incentives for Public Customers. The Exchange believes that providing incentives for Complex Orders by Public Customers is reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting Public Customer order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers in Complex Orders are reasonable. Under the proposed fee structure, a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer making liquidity and interacting with a Public Customer, Professional Customer, Broker Dealer or Market Marker will be credited $0.10 for Complex Orders in both Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If the Professional Customer or Broker Dealer is instead taking liquidity, for Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Classes it will be charged either $0.45 if the Complex Order interacts with a Public Customer's Complex Order or $0.30 if the Complex Order interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer or a Market Maker. For Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Professional Customer or Broker Dealer will be charged either $0.80 if the Complex Order interacts with a Public Customer's Complex Order or $0.45 if the Complex Order interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer or a Market Maker.
The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher fees than Public Customers for Complex Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional Customers, while Public Customers by virtue of not being Broker Dealers, generally engage in trading activity more similar to Broker Dealer proprietary trading accounts (submitting more than 390 standard orders per day on average). The Exchange believes that the higher level of trading activity from these Participants will draw a greater amount of BOX system resources than that of non-professional, Public Customers. Because this higher level of trading activity will result in greater ongoing operational costs, the Exchange aims to recover its costs by assessing Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher fees for transactions.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Market Makers in Complex Orders are reasonable. Under the proposed fee structure, a Market Maker making liquidity and interacting with a Public Customer, Professional Customer, Broker Dealer or Market Marker will be credited $0.10 for Complex Orders in both Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If the Market Maker is instead taking liquidity, for Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Classes it will be charged either $0.40 if the Complex Order interacts with a Public Customer's Complex Order or $0.30 if the Complex Order interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer or a Market Maker. For Complex Orders taking liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Market Maker will be charged either $0.75 if the Complex Order interacts with a Public Customer's Complex Order or $0.45 if the Complex Order interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer or a Market Maker.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for BOX Market Makers to be assessed lower fees than Professional Customers and Broker Dealers for certain Complex Order executions because of the significant contributions to overall market quality that Market Makers provide. Specifically, Market Makers can provide higher volumes of liquidity and lowering their fees will help attract a higher level of Market Maker order flow to the BOX Book and create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all Participants trading on BOX. As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate that Market Makers be charged lower transaction fees than Professional Customers and Broker Dealers for certain Complex Order executions.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers to be charged a higher fee for orders removing liquidity when compared to the credit they receive for orders that add liquidity. Giving a credit to Complex Orders that add liquidity will promote liquidity on the Exchange and ultimately benefit all participants on BOX. Further, the concept of incentivizing orders that add liquidity over orders that remove liquidity is commonly accepted within the industry as part of the “Make/Take” liquidity model.
Finally, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge Professional Customers, Broker Dealers, and Market Makers less for certain executions in Penny Pilot issues compared to Non-Penny Pilot issues because these classes are typically more actively traded; assessing lower fees will further incentivize order flow in Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading on BOX. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to give a greater credit to Public Customers for Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot issues as compared to Penny Pilot issues. Since these classes have wider spreads and are less actively traded, giving a larger credit will further incentivize Public Customers to trade in these classes, ultimately benefitting all Participants trading on BOX.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Complex Order fee structure will keep the Exchange competitive with other exchanges and will be applied in an equitable manner among all BOX Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure is reasonable and competitive with fee structures in place on other exchanges. Further, the Exchange believes that the competitive marketplace impacts the fees proposed for BOX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that applying a fee structure that is determined according to whether the Complex Order removes or adds liquidity, the account type of the Participant submitting the Complex Order, and the contra party will result in Participants being charged appropriately for these transactions. Submitting a Complex is entirely voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if any, to the Exchange.
Further, the Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for Complex Order flow.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Florida dated 04/07/2016.
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 Administrator's disaster declaration, 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 14688 C and for economic injury is 14689 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Florida, Alabama.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Florida dated 04/07/2016.
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 Administrator's disaster declaration, 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 14692 C and for economic injury is 14693 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Florida, Alabama.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Correction—cancellation of meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee meeting. The notice was previously published (81 FR 18933) in the April 1, 2016 issue of the
The meeting to be cancelled was to be held on April 20, 2016—9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The meeting was to be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609) 485-7149 or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting cancellation of the Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee. The meeting agenda will include receiving from the Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public but seating is limited. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to attend the meeting, present statements, or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): Solicitation of Project Proposals for the Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the availability of $20.49 million of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016 funds under the Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning as authorized under Section 20005(b) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, July 6, 2012,
This notice solicits proposals to compete for FY 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016 funding under the Pilot Program for TOD Planning and may include additional funds made available under future appropriations. It outlines the process to apply for funding, identifies FTA's priorities for these competitive funds, and establishes the criteria FTA will use to identify meritorious projects for funding. This announcement is available on the FTA Web site at:
Complete proposals for Pilot Program for TOD Planning funding must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. EDT June 13, 2016.
All proposals must be submitted electronically through the GRANTS.GOV APPLY function. Any agency intending to apply should initiate the process of registering on the GRANTS.GOV site immediately to ensure completion of registration before the submission deadline. Instructions for applying can be found on FTA's Web site at
For program-specific questions, please contact Benjamin Owen, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-5602, email:
The Pilot Program for TOD Planning helps support FTA's mission of improving public transportation for America's communities by providing funding to local communities to integrate land use and transportation planning with a transit capital investment that is seeking, or has recently received, funding through the CIG Program. The Pilot Program is not intended to simply support planning that maintains or increases development adjacent to transit. Instead, the Pilot Program is intended to fund comprehensive planning that supports economic development, ridership, multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increased transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and mixed-use development near transit stations. For projects seeking CIG program funding, this comprehensive planning work will help them develop the information that addresses the CIG Program's evaluation criteria, increasing their competitiveness for funding from the CIG program. For projects that have received CIG construction grants since July 2012 when MAP-21 and this Pilot Program was enacted, this comprehensive planning work will help leverage the Federal investment already made and ensure successful transit corridors. The program also encourages identification of infrastructure needs and engagement with the private sector.
Through this program, FTA intends to fund comprehensive planning work, including for TOD, that would likely otherwise not occur without Federal support. FTA is seeking comprehensive planning projects covering an entire transit capital project corridor, rather than proposals that involve planning for individual station areas or only a small section of the corridor. FTA is also prioritizing applications in corridors with significant challenges related to TOD planning, low levels of existing development, or where the cost of the planning work to overcome the challenges exceeds what might be readily available locally. Lastly, FTA is seeking planning efforts that include strategies to support housing affordability and address residential and commercial displacement that can sometimes occur when transit capital projects are implemented.
This program will support priorities of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It will assist the Department with creating Ladders of Opportunity for all Americans by assisting local project sponsors with planning improved access to employment, health care, education, and housing, and with planning Transit-Oriented Development to revitalize and lift up regions and neighborhoods by attracting new opportunities, jobs and housing. The program will also promote public-private partnerships by requiring private sector participation.
Congress enacted the Pilot Program for TOD Planning to leverage the significant investments in transit projects FTA is making through its CIG Program. Therefore, FTA is requiring that proposed planning activities be associated with a capital transit project pursuing CIG Program funding, including projects currently in the Project Development or Engineering phases of the CIG program, projects that may be seeking entry into the CIG program in the future, and projects that received construction grants from the CIG program since July 2012 when MAP-21 was enacted (see section C, subsection 1 of this notice for more detail on this requirement).
To ensure any proposed planning work reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community and results in concrete, specific deliverables and outcomes, FTA is requiring that transit project sponsors partner with entities with land use planning authority in the transit project corridor to conduct the planning work. FTA will assess the strength of these partnerships in its evaluation of applications.
FTA has been considering the strength of local land use plans and policies in fostering TOD in its evaluation of capital investment grant projects for nearly two decades, over which time the practice of TOD planning and implementation in the United States has advanced significantly. Most local jurisdictions now develop station-area TOD plans in conjunction with the planning for transit capital investments, and several regions have funding tools to encourage TOD. With few exceptions, these advances in TOD practice have been locally funded and FTA's direct involvement has been limited. Thus, the goal of this program is to further TOD planning by addressing barriers to its implementation and ensuring concrete performance outcomes and measures.
The FAST Act authorizes FTA to make grants for eligible projects under the Pilot Program for TOD Planning on a competitive basis subject to the terms and conditions as authorized under Section 20005(b) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, July 6, 2012, with funding provided under 49 U.S.C. 5338(a)(2)(B), as amended by the
FTA intends to fund as many meritorious TOD planning efforts as possible. Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding. FTA anticipates minimum grant awards of $250,000 and maximum grant awards of $2,000,000. The maximum period of performance allowed for the work covered by the award is 24 months.
Any comprehensive planning work proposed for funding under the Pilot Program for TOD Planning must be associated with an eligible transit capital project. To be eligible, the proposed transit capital project must be a New Starts, Core Capacity or fixed-guideway Small Starts project as defined under the CIG Program (
i. Expected to enter New Starts, Small Starts or Core Capacity Project Development in the future;
ii. In the Project Development or Engineering phase of the New Starts or Core Capacity process, or in the Project Development phase of the Small Starts process by the date the application to the Pilot Program for TOD Planning is submitted; or
iii. A project that received a construction grant through the CIG Program since July 2012 when the Pilot Program was enacted in MAP-21.
Based on this definition of an eligible transit project, the following types of transit projects are ineligible:
i. A proposed fixed guideway transit project that does not intend to seek CIG funding in the future, is not currently a CIG project in the Project Development or Engineering phase of the program, or that received a construction grant award from the CIG program prior to July 2012;
ii. Any proposed transit project that was awarded TOD Pilot Program funding in 2015; and
iii. Small Starts corridor-based bus rapid transit projects that do not meet the definition of a fixed-guideway project per Section 5309(a) of title 49, United States Code.
Eligible applicants under this program must be FTA grantees (
Applications for funding under the Pilot Program for TOD Planning must describe how the planning work proposed addresses all six aspects of the general authority stipulated in Section 20005(b)(2) of MAP-21:
i. Enhances economic development, ridership, and other goals established during the project development and engineering processes;
ii. facilitates multimodal connectivity and accessibility;
iii. increases access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic;
iv. enables mixed-use development;
v. identifies infrastructure needs associated with the eligible project; and
vi. includes private sector participation.
Applications should describe the anticipated final deliverables that will result from the planning work. Examples of final deliverables may include, but are not restricted to, the following:
i. A comprehensive plan report that includes corridor development policies and station development plans, a proposed timeline, and recommended financing strategies for these plans, which may include use of Federal loan programs such as USDOT's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement and Financing (RRIF) programs;
ii. A strategic plan report that includes corridor specific planning strategies and program recommendations to support comprehensive planning;
iii. Revised TOD-focused zoning codes and/or resolutions;
iv. A report evaluating and recommending tools to encourage TOD implementation such as land banking, value capture, and development financing;
v. An analysis of the effects of gentrification due to transit capital project implementation and recommendations to promote inclusive communities and reduce residential and commercial displacement;
vi. An analysis of efforts to connect people to opportunities by promoting multimodal access to transit stations and by improving connectivity of disadvantaged populations to essential services;
vii. Policies to encourage TOD; and/or
viii. Local or regional resolutions to implement TOD plans and/or establish TOD funding mechanisms.
Applications should not include the following activities, which include activities that are targeted to only a single location rather than the comprehensive corridor-focused TOD planning study desired by FTA:
i. TOD planning work in a single transit capital project station area;
ii. Transit project development activities that would be reimbursable through the CIG Program under a construction grant agreement, such as project planning, the design and engineering of stations and other facilities, environmental analyses needed for the transit capital project, or costs associated with specific joint development activities;
iii. Capital projects, such as land acquisition, construction, and utility relocation; and
iv. Site- or parcel-specific planning, such as the design of individual structures.
The maximum Federal funding share is 80 percent.
The application must describe the cost of the planning effort proposed and identify the funding sources necessary to complete the work, including the amount of Pilot Program for TOD
Eligible sources of local match include the following: Cash from non-Government sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services; revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions; amounts received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization; revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms; or funds from an undistributed cash surplus; replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve; or new capital. In-kind contributions are permitted. Transportation Development Credits (formerly referred to as Toll Revenue Credits) may not be used to satisfy the local match requirement.
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Proposals should include only a completed SF 424 Mandatory form (downloaded from GRANTS.GOV) and the following attachments to the completed SF 424:
i. A completed Applicant and Proposal Profile supplemental form for the Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning (supplemental form) found on the FTA Web site at
ii. A map of the proposed study area showing the transit project alignment and stations, major roadways, major landmarks, and the geographic boundaries of the proposed comprehensive planning activities;
iii. Documentation of a partnership between the transit project sponsor and an entity in the project corridor with land use planning authority to conduct the planning work, if the applicant does not have both of these responsibilities; and
iv. Documentation of any funding commitments for the proposed planning work.
The supplemental form as described above must be completed and validated using the “Validate Form” button. The supplemental form prompts applicants for all required information about the proposed planning work (listed below), includes fields for responses and takes the place of a free-form written application. In the event of errors, FTA recommends saving the form on your computer and ensuring that JavaScript is enabled in your PDF reader;
The supplemental form will prompt applicants to address the following items:
1. Identify the project title and project scope to be funded, including anticipated final deliverables.
2. Identify an eligible transit project that meets the requirements of section C, subsection 1 of this notice.
3. Provide evidence of a partnership between the transit project sponsor and at least one agency with land use authority in the transit capital project corridor, per section C, subsection 2 of this notice.
4. Address the six aspects of general authority under MAP-21 Section 20005(b)(2).
5. Address each evaluation criterion separately, demonstrating how the project responds to each criterion as described in section E.
6. Provide a line-item budget for the total planning effort, with enough detail to indicate the various key components of the project.
7. Identify the Federal amount requested.
8. Document the matching funds, including amount and source of the match (may include local or private sector financial participation in the project). Describe whether the matching funds are committed or planned, and include documentation of the commitments.
9. Address whether other Federal funds have been sought or received for the project.
10. Provide a project time-line, including significant milestones such as the dates anticipated to incorporate the planning work effort into the region's unified planning work program, and to complete all of the proposed planning work within the maximum period of performance.
11. Describe how the planning work advances goals of the region's metropolitan transportation plan.
12. Propose performance criteria for the implementation of the planning work.
13. Identify possible impediments to the planning work and its implementation, and how the work will address them.
14. For projects expected to enter New Starts, Small Starts or Core Capacity Project Development in the future, applications must demonstrate the seriousness of the transit capital project by indicating whether:
i. It has been included in a local plan (
ii. It has been included in a regional plan (
iii. It has been included in a statewide transportation plan or transit plan;
iv. A feasibility study has been undertaken;
v. NEPA process is underway;
vi. The locally preferred alternative has been selected:
vii. Community and/or stakeholder engagement has started;
viii. Discussions with the FTA Regional Office have taken place;
For each of the above indicate yes or no, and attach a link to any applicable documents or Web sites. Do not attach the documentation.
FTA will not consider any additional materials submitted by applicants in its evaluation of proposals. The total length of the completed supplemental form and documentation of partnerships and funding commitments should be no more than 15 pages.
Within 24-48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive three email messages from GRANTS.GOV: (1) Confirmation of successful transmission to GRANTS.GOV, (2) confirmation of successful validation by GRANTS.GOV and (3) confirmation of successful validation by FTA. If confirmations of successful validation are not received and a notice of failed validation or incomplete materials is received, the applicant must address the reason for the failed validation, as described in the email notice, and resubmit before the submission deadline. If making a resubmission for any reason, include all original attachments regardless of which attachments were updated and check the box on the supplemental form indicating this is a resubmission.
Any addenda that FTA releases on the application process will be posted at
Proposers are encouraged to begin registration process on the GRANTS.GOV site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. Registered proposers may still be required to take steps to keep their registration up to date before submissions can be made successfully: (1) Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) is renewed annually and (2) persons making submissions on behalf of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) must be authorized in GRANTS.GOV by the AOR to make submissions. Instructions on the GRANTS.GOV registration process are listed in Appendix A.
Information such as proposer name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF 424 form and supplemental form. Proposers must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. Proposers should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms, and ensure that the federal and local amounts specified are consistent. The information listed in sections D of this NOFO MUST be included on the SF 424 and supplemental forms for all requests for Pilot Program for TOD Planning funding.
i. Name of the lead applicant and, if applicable, the specific co-sponsors submitting the application.
ii. Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number.
iii. Contact information including: Contact name, title, address, congressional district, fax and phone number, and email address if available.
iv. Name of person(s) authorized to apply on behalf of the system (attach a signed transmittal letter) must accompany the proposal.
FTA will evaluate proposals that include all components identified in section D of this notice according to the following three criteria:
FTA will evaluate each project to determine the need for funding based on the following factors:
i. Barriers to TOD in the corridor and how the proposed work will overcome them;
ii. How the proposed work will advance TOD implementation in the corridor and region;
iii. Justification as to why Federal funds are needed for the proposed work; and
iv. Extent to which the transit project corridor could benefit from TOD planning.
FTA will evaluate the strength of the work plan, schedule and process included in an application based on the following factors:
i. Extent to which the schedule contains sufficient detail, identifies all steps needed to implement to work proposed, and is achievable;
ii. The proportion of the project corridor covered by the work plan;
iii. Extent of partnerships, including with non-public sector entities;
iv. The partnerships' technical capability to develop, adopt and implement the plans, based on FTA's assessment of the applicant's description of the policy formation, implementation, and financial roles of the partners, and the roles and responsibilities of proposed staff;
v. Whether the performance measures identified in the application relate to the goals of the planning work;
vi. The extent to which the application demonstrates efforts to address gentrification and displacement;
vii. The extent to which the application demonstrates a commitment to connecting communities, particularly connecting disadvantaged populations to essential services, and to revitalizing economically distressed areas;
viii. Whether the proposed work will examine innovative financial tools such as value capture; and
ix. Whether the application demonstrates leveraging other Federal grants that would support the proposed work plan.
FTA will assess the status of local matching funds for the planning work. Applications demonstrating that matching funds for the proposed planning work are committed will receive higher ratings from FTA on this factor. Proposed planning projects for which matching funding sources have been identified, but are not yet committed, will be given lower ratings under this factor by FTA, as will proposed projects for which in-kind contributions constitute the primary or sole source of matching funds.
A technical evaluation committee consisting of FTA staff will perform a primarily qualitative evaluation according to the criteria described above. FTA will assign greatest emphasis to the Demonstrated Need and Strength of the Work Plan, Schedule and Process criteria. Each complete, eligible application will receive a rating of Highly Recommended, Recommended or Not Recommended depending on its performance against the criteria. Applications that are complete but not eligible will not be rated. FTA may seek clarification from any applicant about any statement in its application that FTA finds ambiguous, and/or to request additional documentation to be considered during the evaluation process to clarify information contained within the application.
After a thorough evaluation of all eligible proposals, the technical evaluation committee will provide selection recommendations to the FTA Administrator. The FTA Administrator will determine the final list of project selections, and the amount of funding for each project. Geographic diversity, diversity of community size, and the applicant's receipt of other FTA competitive funding may be considered in FTA's award decisions. FTA expects to announce the selected projects and notify successful proposers during fall 2016.
Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse applicants for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a grant until FTA has issued pre-award authority for selected projects through a notification in the
Local funds must be committed and grants awarded within eight months of funding announcements.
If selected, awardees will apply for a grant through FTA's electronic grants management system and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements of the Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning program, including those of FTA Circular 8100.1C and Circular 5010.1D. All competitive grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional Notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
FTA encourages proposers to notify the appropriate metropolitan planning organizations in areas likely to be served by the funds made available under this program. Selected projects must be incorporated into the unified planning work programs of metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in FTA's electronic grants management system on a quarterly basis. Awardees must also submit copies of the deliverables identified in the work plan to the FTA regional office at the corresponding milestones.
For program-specific questions, please contact Benjamin Owen, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-5602, email:
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” FTA will consider applications for funding only from eligible recipients for eligible projects listed in Section C.
Complete applications must be submitted through GRANTS.GOV by 11:59 p.m. EDT June 13, 2016. Contact information for FTA's regional offices can be found on FTA's Web site at
As a result of amendments in the FAST Act, transit-oriented development projects may receive loans through the USDOT Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. Further information about this program was published in the
Same day. If requested by phone (1-866-705-5711) DUNS is provided immediately. If your organization does not have one, you will need to go to the Dun & Bradstreet Web site at
Three to five business days or up to two weeks. If you already have a TIN, your SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. If you are applying for an EIN please allow up to 2 weeks. Ensure that your organization is registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) at System for Award Management (SAM). If your organization is not, an authorizing official of your organization must register.
Same day. Complete your AOR (Authorized Organization Representative) profile on Grants.gov and create your username and password. You will need to use your organization's DUNS Number to complete this step.
*Same day. The E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC) at your organization must login to Grants.gov to confirm you as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). Please note that there can be more than one AOR for your organization. In some cases the E-Biz POC is also the AOR for an organization.
At any time, you can track your AOR status by logging in with your username and password. Login as an Applicant (enter your username & password you obtained in Step 3) using the following link:
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in New York, NY; North Brunswick Township and City of New Brunswick, NJ; and Cobb and Fulton Counties, GA. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 12, 2016.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Terence Plaskon, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-0442. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
1.
2.
3.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(6); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of a proposal to extend, with revision, the Country Exposure Report (FFIEC 009) and the Country Exposure Information Report (FFIEC 009a), which are currently approved collections of information. The agencies propose to modify these collections effective September 30, 2016, to (1) have institutions provide their Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) on both reporting forms, only if they already have one, and (2) add Intermediate Holding Companies (IHCs) to the Board's respondent panel. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval. The agencies will then submit the revisions to OMB for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 13, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling 202-649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comments or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
• Agency Web site:
•
•
•
•
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 for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to 202-395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 009 and FFIEC 009a discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the FFIEC 009 and FFIEC 009a reporting forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site (
The agencies are proposing to revise and extend for three years the FFIEC 009 and FFIEC 009a, which are currently an approved collection of information for each agency.
The Country Exposure Report (FFIEC 009) is filed quarterly with the agencies and provides information on international claims of U.S. banks, savings associations, bank holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies that is used for supervisory and analytical purposes. The information is used to monitor the foreign country exposures of reporting institutions to determine the degree of risk in their portfolios and assess the potential risk of loss. The Country Exposure Information Report (FFIEC 009a) is a supplement to the FFIEC 009 and provides publicly available information on material foreign country exposures (all exposures to a country in excess of 1 percent of total assets or 20 percent of capital, whichever is less) of U.S. banks, savings associations, bank holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies that file the FFIEC 009 report. As part of the Country Exposure Information Report, reporting institutions also must furnish a list of countries in which they have lending exposures above 0.75 percent of total assets or 15 percent of total capital, whichever is less.
A. The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code that uniquely identifies entities that engage in financial transactions. The recent financial crisis spurred the development of a Global LEI System (GLEIS). Internationally, regulators and market participants have recognized the importance of the LEI as a key improvement in financial data systems. The Group of Twenty (G-20) nations directed the Financial Stability Board to lead the coordination of international regulatory work and deliver concrete recommendations on the GLEIS by mid-2012, which in turn were endorsed by the G-20 later that same year. In January 2013, the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), including participation by regulators from around the world, was established to oversee the GLEIS on an interim basis. With the establishment of the full Global LEI Foundation in 2014, the ROC continues to review and develop broad policy standards for LEIs. The OCC, the Board, and the FDIC are all members of the ROC.
The LEI system is designed to facilitate several financial stability objectives, including the provision of higher quality and more accurate financial data. In the United States, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has recommended that regulators and market participants continue to work together to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of financial data both nationally and globally. In this regard, the FSOC also has recommended that its member agencies promote the use of the LEI in reporting requirements and rulemakings, where appropriate.
Effective beginning October 31, 2014, the Board started requiring holding companies to provide their LEI on the cover pages of the FR Y-6, FR Y-7, and FR Y-10 reports
B. On December 14, 2012, the Board invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed Regulation YY)
These information collections are mandatory under the following statutes: 12 U.S.C. 161 and 1817 (national banks), 12 U.S.C. 1464 (federal savings associations), 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1) and (2), 1844(c), and 3906 (state member banks and bank holding companies); 12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(2)(A) (savings and loan holding companies); 12 U.S.C. 5365(a) (intermediate holding companies); and 12 U.S.C. 1817 and 1820 (insured state nonmember commercial and savings
The agencies invite comment on the following topics related to this collection of information:
(a) Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 collections 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.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 11, 2016.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact: Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509, National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 12, 2016.
Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or (954) 423-7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 12, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information please contact: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or (954) 423-7977 or write: TAP Office, 1000 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324 or contact us at the Web site:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 25, 2016.
Theresa Singleton at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3329.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 25, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time via
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2016.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 19, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509-National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 3, 2016.
Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Tuesday, May 3, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kim Vinci. For more information please contact: Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086, TAP Office, 4330 Watt Ave., Sacramento, CA 95821, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2016.
Linda Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202)317-3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509- National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
Notice of Open Season for Recruitment of IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) Members.
April 11, 2016, through May16, 2016.
Lisa Billups at 214-413-6523 (not a toll-free call).
Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are inviting individuals to help improve the nation's tax agency by applying to be members of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP). The mission of the TAP is to listen to taxpayers, identify issues that affect taxpayers, and make suggestions for improving IRS service and customer satisfaction. The TAP serves as an advisory body to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. TAP members will participate in subcommittees that channel their feedback to the IRS through the Panel's parent committee.
The IRS is seeking applicants who have an interest in good government, a personal commitment to volunteer approximately 200 to 300 hours a year, and a desire to help improve IRS customer service. As a federal advisory committee, TAP is required to have membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. Thus, TAP membership represents a cross-section of the taxpaying public with at least one member from each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in addition to one member representing international taxpayers. For application purposes, “international taxpayers” are defined broadly to include U.S. citizens working, living, or doing business abroad or in a U.S. territory. Potential candidates must be U.S. citizens, not a current employee of any Bureau of the Treasury Department or have worked for any Bureau of the Treasury Department within the three years of December 1 of the current year and must pass a federal tax compliance check and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation. Applicants who practice before the IRS must be in good standing with the IRS. Federally-registered lobbyists cannot be members of the TAP. The IRS is seeking members or alternates in the following locations: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
TAP members are a diverse group of citizens who represent the interests of taxpayers, from their respective geographic locations, by providing feedback from a taxpayer's perspective on ways to improve IRS customer service and administration of the federal tax system, and by identifying grassroots taxpayer issues. Members should have good communication skills and be able to speak to taxpayers about TAP and its activities, while clearly distinguishing between TAP positions and their personal viewpoints.
Interested applicants should visit the TAP Web site at
The opening date for submitting applications is April 11, 2016, and the deadline for submitting applications is May 16, 2016. Interviews will be held. The Department of the Treasury will review the recommended candidates and make final selections. New TAP members will serve a three-year term starting in December 2016. (
Questions regarding the selection of TAP members may be directed to Lisa Billups, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., TA:TAP Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224, or 214-413-6523 (not a toll-free call).
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 |