Page Range | 30483-31159 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 30530 - Applications for New Awards; Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools; Correction | |
81 FR 30597 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma | |
81 FR 30572 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 30483 - Rules of Practice and Procedure; Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for Inflation | |
81 FR 30610 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 30521 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 30597 - Section 7058(c) Determination for Zika Virus | |
81 FR 30599 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: U.S. Passport Renewal Application for Eligible Individuals | |
81 FR 30535 - Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board; Environmental Economics Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 30599 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Technology Security/Clearance Plans, Screening Records, and Non-Disclosure Agreements | |
81 FR 30541 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; National Institutes of Health (NIH) Loan Repayment Programs; Office of the Director (OD) | |
81 FR 30519 - Determination Under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR Agreement”) | |
81 FR 30545 - Notice of Aged Delinquent Portfolio Loan Sale (ADPLS) | |
81 FR 30595 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00468 | |
81 FR 30520 - Academic Research Council Meeting | |
81 FR 30505 - Mandatory Deposit of Electronic Books and Sound Recordings Available Only Online | |
81 FR 30565 - 181st Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 30569 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
81 FR 30518 - Input on Proposals and Positions for 2016 World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly | |
81 FR 30531 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
81 FR 30523 - Applications for New Awards; Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs-Professional Development Grants Program | |
81 FR 30533 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
81 FR 30596 - New York Disaster #NY-00167 | |
81 FR 30531 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
81 FR 30532 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Termoelectrica U.S., LLC | |
81 FR 30596 - IDAHO Disaster #ID-00062 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
81 FR 30571 - Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed | |
81 FR 30571 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board | |
81 FR 30548 - Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales | |
81 FR 30566 - Nemko-CCL, Inc.: Applications for Expansion of Recognition | |
81 FR 30529 - Reopening; Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2016; Small, Rural School Achievement Program | |
81 FR 30607 - Chrysler Group, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
81 FR 30609 - Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms | |
81 FR 30568 - Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2016 | |
81 FR 30530 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A (SEA Uses of Funds) | |
81 FR 30522 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Impact Aid Program Application for Section 7002 Assistance | |
81 FR 30607 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 30605 - Compendium of Public Transportation Safety Standards | |
81 FR 30536 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
81 FR 30538 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
81 FR 30537 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
81 FR 30604 - Contact Rail (Third Rail) System Hazards | |
81 FR 30601 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
81 FR 30602 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
81 FR 30596 - Public Availability of Social Security Administration Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Service Contract Inventory | |
81 FR 30517 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 41 | |
81 FR 30600 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Application for Employment With the Federal Aviation Administration; Withdrawal | |
81 FR 30547 - Notice of Public Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada | |
81 FR 30602 - Notice of Proposed Buy America Waiver for Minivans | |
81 FR 30521 - U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 30571 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 30570 - Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 30570 - Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress | |
81 FR 30540 - Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
81 FR 30548 - Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Products Containing Same, and Power Tool Products With Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination; Deny Certain Motions; and Grant a Request for a Commission Hearing; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding | |
81 FR 30550 - United States v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement | |
81 FR 30568 - Distribution of the 2012-2013 Digital Audio Recording Technology Musical Works Royalty Funds | |
81 FR 30545 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 30515 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Information Collection for the Child and Adult Care Food Program | |
81 FR 31126 - Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act | |
81 FR 31143 - Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act | |
81 FR 30543 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
81 FR 30541 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 30544 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 30533 - Nicatous Lake Lodge and Cabins, LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
81 FR 30534 - Competitive Transmission Development, Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference and Request for Speakers | |
81 FR 30517 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 121-Albany, New York; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Townsend Leather Company, Inc., (Finished Upholstery Grade Leather, Cut Parts and Product Samples); Johnstown, New York | |
81 FR 30517 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 281-Miami, Florida, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Alpha Marketing Network, Inc. d/b/a AMN Distributors, (Kitting-Wine Gift Sets), Miami, Florida | |
81 FR 30516 - Foreign-Trade Zone 110-Albuquerque, New Mexico; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site Framework | |
81 FR 30583 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule | |
81 FR 30580 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options Platform | |
81 FR 30594 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List To Make a Clarifying Change Regarding the Rebate Program Recently Implemented by the Exchange for the NYSE Bonds System | |
81 FR 30573 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Customer Rebates | |
81 FR 30578 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, To Delete the IOCM and ICMT Routing Options | |
81 FR 30575 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Accounts Categories for Positions of Clearing Member Affiliates | |
81 FR 30589 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 98-Equities | |
81 FR 30585 - TCW Alternative Funds, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 30484 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District | |
81 FR 30503 - Safety Zone; Annual Roy Webster Cross-Channel Swim, Columbia River, Hood River, OR | |
81 FR 30509 - Approval of California State Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District | |
81 FR 30610 - Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 30510 - Rules Relating to Board-Initiated Investigations | |
81 FR 30495 - Retrospective Review-Improving the Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs Participants; Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | |
81 FR 30487 - Medicare Program; Obtaining Final Medicare Secondary Payer Conditional Payment Amounts via Web Portal | |
81 FR 30614 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail |
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
This rule implements inflation adjustments to civil money penalties (CMPs) that the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) may impose under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. These adjustments are required by 2015 amendments to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.
This rule is effective on August 1, 2016.
Howard Rubin, General Counsel, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, (703) 883-4380, TTY (703) 883-4390.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act)
FCSIC must enact regulations that adjust its CMPs pursuant to the inflation adjustment formula of the amended Inflation Adjustment Act and rounded using a method prescribed by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The new amounts will apply to penalties assessed on or after the effective date of this rule. Agencies do not have discretion in choosing whether to adjust a CMP, by how much to adjust a CMP, or the methods used to determine the adjustment.
First, section 5.65(c) of the Farm Credit Act, as amended (Act), provides that any insured Farm Credit System bank that willfully fails or refuses to file any certified statement or pay any required premium shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $100 for each day that such violations continue, which penalty FCSIC may recover for its use.
FCSIC's current § 1411.1, promulgated in 2001 pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act as then in effect, provides that FCSIC can impose a maximum penalty of $117 per day for a violation under section 5.65(c) and (d) of the Act. FCSIC has not been required to make adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act since 2001.
The 2015 Act requires agencies to (1) adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking (IFR) and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Catch-up adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the CMP was established or adjusted (other than through Inflation Adjustment Act adjustments), and the October 2015 CPI-U. Annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. CMPs provided for in section 5.65 of the Act were enacted in 1988 and not subsequently changed (other than through Inflation Adjustment Act adjustments). In accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (pursuant to a directive in the 2015 Act), FCSIC must multiply the maximum amount of civil money penalty provided for in section 5.65(c) and (d) of the Farm Credit Act ($100) by 1.97869.
The 2015 Act specifically directs Federal agencies to “adjust civil money penalties through an interim final rulemaking” and the Inflation Adjustment Act gives agencies no discretion in the calculation of the adjustment. Therefore, FCSIC concludes that public notice and an opportunity to comment are not necessary or appropriate under the Administrative Procedure Act and adopts this rule in final form.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Banks, Banking, Civil money penalties, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1411 of chapter XIV, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 5.58(10), 5.65(c) and (d) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2277a-7(10), 2277a-14(c) and (d)); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, a civil money penalty imposed pursuant to section 5.65(c) or (d) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, for a violation occurring on or after August 1, 2016 shall not exceed $198 per day for each day the violation continues.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern administrative changes of a previously approved regulation and emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in aerospace assembly and coating operations and in metal, plastic and pleasure craft parts and products coating operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these activities under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on July 18, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 16, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0070 at
Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On October 30, 1996, the EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 103.1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On September 11, 2014, the EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rules 410.4 and 410.8 met the completeness criteria as well.
EKAPCD adopted an earlier version of Rule 103.1 on August 31, 1976, which CARB submitted to us on November 10,
EKAPCD amended an earlier version of Rule 410.4 on March 7, 1996, and CARB submitted it to us on May 10, 1996. We approved the earlier version of 410.4 into the SIP on January 13, 2000 (65 FR 2046). EKAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 410.4 on March 13, 2014, and CARB submitted it to us on July 25, 2014.
There are no previous versions of Rule 410.8 in the SIP. EKAPCD adopted Rule 410.8 on March 13, 2014, and submitted it to us on July 25, 2014.
While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.
Rule 103.1 supports some of the basic infrastructure SIP requirements described in section 110(a) of the CAA with respect to public records access. The submitted version of Rule 103.1 contains only minor typographical changes from the version that we previously approved into the SIP in 1978, and is identical in substance to the SIP-approved version.
Rule 410.4 limits the VOC content and establishes related requirements for the coating of metal parts or products, large appliance parts or products, metal furniture, and plastic parts or products. EKAPCD revised the rule largely to be consistent with national guidance and with the rules of neighboring air districts.
Rule 410.8 limits VOC emissions from aerospace primers, coatings, adhesives, maskants and lubricants, as well as from cleaning, stripping, storing and disposal of organic solvents and waste materials associated with the use of the abovementioned aerospace products. This rule also provides for administrative requirements including those for recordkeeping and measurement of VOC emissions.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2)). EKAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Marginal
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).
4. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations” (EPA 453/R-97-004, December 1997).
5. Guidance Memorandum for “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating” (EPA 453/R-08-003, June 2010).
6. “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating” (EPA 453/R-08-003, September 2008).
7. “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” USEPA Memorandum dated September 13, 2013.
8. “Review of State Regulation Recodifications,” USEPA Memorandum dated February 12, 1990.
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the EKAPCD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 July 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(35) * * *
(xiii) * * *
(F) Previously approved on March 22, 1978, in paragraph (c)(35)(xiii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(239)(i)(C)(
(231) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(239) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(447) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule specifies the process and timeline for expanding CMS' existing Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Web portal to conform to section 201 of the Medicare IVIG and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (the SMART Act). The final rule specifies a timeline for developing a multifactor authentication solution to securely permit authorized users other than the beneficiary to access CMS' MSP conditional payment amounts and claims detail information via the MSP Web portal. It also requires that we add functionality to the existing MSP Web portal that permits users to: Notify us that the specified case is approaching settlement; obtain time and date stamped final conditional payment summary statements and amounts before reaching settlement; and ensure that relatedness disputes and any other discrepancies are addressed within 11 business days of receipt of dispute documentation.
These regulations are effective June 16, 2016.
Suzanne Mattes, (410) 786-2536.
The Medicare IVIG and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012 (the SMART Act) was enacted on January 10, 2013. Section 201 of the SMART Act amends section 1862(b)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and requires the establishment of an internet Web site (referred to as the “Web portal”) through which beneficiaries, their attorneys or other representatives, and authorized applicable plans (as defined in section 1862(b)(8)(F) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(8)(F)) who have pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments, may access related CMS' MSP conditional payment amounts and claims detail information.
The existing MSP Web portal currently permits authorized users (including beneficiaries, attorneys, or other representatives) and applicable plans to register through the Web portal in order to access MSP conditional payment amounts electronically and update certain case-specific information online.
Beneficiaries are able to log into the existing Web portal by logging into their
Beneficiaries' attorneys or other representatives, as well as applicable plans, may register through the Web portal to access conditional payment information. In order to comply with federal privacy and security requirements, including the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), we have implemented a multifactor authentication tool that will permit authorized individuals, other than the beneficiary, to securely access detailed conditional payment information through the Web portal.
Once the beneficiary's attorney or other representative is designated as an authorized user, he or she may log into the Web portal to view the conditional payment amount and perform certain actions, which include addressing discrepancies by disputing claims and uploading settlement information. It is important to note that, in situations where there is a pending insurance or workers' compensation settlement, the beneficiary is designated as the “identified debtor”. This means that only the beneficiary and his or her attorney or other representative have the authority to take action on the beneficiary's MSP recovery case. This includes disputing claims and requesting a final conditional payment amount through the Web portal. An applicable plan is only able to take these actions if it submits proper proof of representation. The applicable plan cannot take action on a beneficiary's case unless it has obtained proof of representation that authorizes it to act on behalf of the beneficiary.
In keeping with the requirements of the SMART Act, we have added functionality to the existing Web portal that permits users to notify us when the specified case is approaching settlement, download or otherwise obtain time and date stamped final conditional payment summary statements and amounts before reaching settlement, and ensure that relatedness disputes and any other discrepancies are addressed within 11 business days of receipt of dispute documentation.
In the September 20, 2013
In the September 2013 IFC (78 FR 57804), we defined “Applicable plan” as the following laws, plans, or other arrangements, including the fiduciary or administrator for such law, plan or arrangement:
• Liability insurance (including self-insurance).
• No fault insurance.
• Workers' compensation laws or plans.
We also defined “Medicare Secondary Payer conditional payment information” as a term that means all of the following:
• Dates of service.
• Provider names.
• Diagnosis codes.
• Conditional payment amounts.
• Claims detail information.
We note that we are removing the definition of “Medicare Secondary Payer conditional payment information” to avoid redundancy and confusion. The language of the rule, itself, specifies which pieces of conditional payment information will be available via Web portal, based upon the level of authorization the user has when he or she accesses the Web portal.
In the September 2013 IFC (78 FR 57801), we noted that we will continue to provide beneficiaries with access to details on claims related to their pending settlements through the Web portal. This will include dates of service, provider names, diagnosis codes, and conditional payment amounts. Beneficiaries and their attorneys or other representatives will continue to be able to dispute the relatedness of claims and submit a notice of settlement and other types of documentation through the Web portal. We have added functionality that will permit beneficiaries to download or otherwise electronically obtain time and date stamped payment summary statements, and exchange other information securely with Medicare's contractor via the Web portal.
A beneficiary's attorney or other representative and the applicable plan will continue to be able to register to use the Web portal and access conditional payment amounts. To access more detailed information related to a beneficiary's pending settlement, users will register to use a multifactor authentication process, as defined in and required by the most recent version of the CMS Enterprise Information Security Group Risk Management Handbook, Volume III, Standard 3.1, CMS Authentication Standards, developed in accordance with FISMA and regulations promulgated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The most recent version of CMS' Risk Management Handbook can be found at
With this tool, a beneficiary's authorized attorney or other representatives or an authorized applicable plan that has appropriately registered to access the Web portal, and has registered to use the multifactor authentication tool, has access to more detailed MSP conditional payment information for a specified MSP recovery case. This additional information includes dates of services, provider names, diagnosis codes, as well as the conditional payment amounts already available through the Web portal. If an authorized user does not register to use the multifactor authentication tool, he or she will continue to have access to the conditional payment amounts and he or she will continue to be able to perform certain functions, but details, including dates of service, provider names, diagnosis codes, will not be visible to that user.
In the September 2013 IFC (78 FR 57801), we noted that once the beneficiary, his or her attorney or other representative, or an applicable plan provides notice of pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers' compensation settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments to the appropriate Medicare contractor, the Medicare contractor will compile and post claims that are related to the pending settlement for which Medicare has paid conditionally. Once a recovery case is established and posted on the Web portal, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney, other representative, or authorized applicable plan may access the recovery case through the Web portal, and notify CMS once—and only once—that a settlement is expected to occur in 120 days or less. Conditional payment information will be posted to the Web portal within 65 days or less of receipt of the notice of the pending settlement.
Section 1862(b)(2)(B)(vii)(V) of the Act permits us to extend our response timeframe by an additional 30 days if we determine that additional time is required to address related claims that Medicare has paid conditionally. We anticipate that such situations would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• A recovery case that requires CMS' contractor to review the systematic filtering of associated claims for a case and subsequently adjust those filters manually to ensure that claims are related to the pending settlement.
• CMS' systems failures that do not otherwise fall within the definition of exceptional circumstances.
Section 1862(b)(2)(B)(vii)(V) of the Act also permits us to further extend our claims compilation response timeframe by the number of days required to address the issue(s) that result from “exceptional circumstances” pertaining to a failure in the claims and payment posting system. Per the statute, such situations must be defined in regulations in a manner such that “not
If the beneficiary, or his or her authorized attorney or other representative, believes that claims included in the most up-to-date conditional payment summary statement are unrelated to the pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlement, he or she may address discrepancies through the dispute process available through the Web portal. The beneficiary, or his or her authorized attorney or other representative, may dispute the relatedness of an individual conditional payment once and only once. The beneficiary or his or her authorized attorney or other representative may be required to submit additional supporting documentation in a form and manner specified by the Secretary to support the assertion that the disputed conditional payment is unrelated to the settlement. If the Medicare contractor does not accept a dispute for a particular conditional payment, that conditional payment will remain part of the total conditional payment amount and may not be disputed through this process again.
Once CMS has been notified that a pending settlement is 120 days or less from settlement, disputes submitted through the Web portal will be resolved within 11 business days of receipt of the dispute, including any required supporting documentation, as per section 1862(b)(2)(B)(vii)(IV) of the Act.
After disputes have been fully resolved, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative, may download or otherwise request a time and date stamped final conditional payment summary statement through the Web portal. This statement will constitute the final conditional payment amount if settlement is reached within 3 days of the date on the conditional payment summary statement. If the beneficiary or his or her attorney is approaching settlement and any disputes have not been fully resolved, he or she may not download or otherwise request a final conditional payment summary statement until the dispute has been resolved.
It is important to note that, per section 1862(b)(2)(B)(vii)(IV) of the Act, this dispute process is not an appeals process, nor does it establish a right of appeal regarding that dispute. There will be no administrative or judicial review related to this dispute process. However, the beneficiary will maintain his or her appeal rights regarding CMS' MSP recovery determination, once CMS issues its final demand. Those appeal rights are explained in the final demand letter issued by CMS, and more information may be found in 42 CFR 405, subpart I.
The beneficiary or his or her attorney or other representative may obtain the recovery demand letter by submitting settlement information specified by the Secretary through the Web portal in 30 days or less from date of settlement. The amount and type of settlement information required will be the same information that CMS typically collects to calculate its recovery demand amount. This information will include, but is not limited to: The date of settlement, the total settlement amount, the attorney fee amount or percentage, and additional costs borne by the beneficiary to obtain his or her settlement. This information must be provided within 30 days or less of the date of settlement. Otherwise, the final conditional payment amount obtained through the Web portal will expire and any additional conditional payments with dates of service through and including the date of settlement will be included in the recovery demand letter. Once settlement information is received, we will apply a pro rata reduction to the final conditional payment amount in accordance with 42 CFR 411.37 and issue a MSP recovery demand letter. We expect to incorporate a method into the Web portal that will allow settlement information to be entered directly through the Web portal and/or uploaded directly through the Web portal.
If the underlying liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation claim derives from alleged exposure to a toxic substance or environmental hazard, ingestion of pharmaceutical drug or other product or substance, or implantation of a medical device, joint replacement or something similar, the beneficiary or his or her attorney or other representative must provide notice to the CMS contractor via the Web portal before beginning the process to obtain a final conditional payment summary statement and amount through the Web portal. Many of these types of recovery cases require additional manual filtering and review to ensure that the claims included in the payment summary statement are related to the pending settlement.
An applicable plan may only obtain a final conditional payment amount related to a pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlement, in the form and manner described in 42 CFR 411.39(c), if the applicable plan has properly registered to use the Web portal and has obtained from the beneficiary, and submitted to the appropriate Medicare contractor, proper proof of representation. The applicable plan may obtain read only access if the applicable plan obtains from the beneficiary proper consent to release and submits it to the appropriate Medicare contractor.
The final conditional payment amount obtained via the Web portal represents Medicare covered and otherwise reimbursable items and services that are related to the beneficiary's settlement and that are furnished prior to the time and date stamped on the final conditional payment summary statement. Systems and process changes to provide final conditional payment summary statements and amounts via the Web portal were implemented on January 1, 2016.
We recognize that the intent of the final conditional payment process is to expedite Medicare reimbursement and promote timely settlement. However, we are required to apply a pro rata reduction, in accordance with to 42 CFR 411.37, to account for attorney fees and costs borne by the beneficiary to obtain his or her settlement. In order to comply with this regulatory requirement and comport with the aforementioned intent of the final conditional payment process, we have imposed a requirement that settlement information must be submitted within no more than 30 days of reaching settlement.
After consideration of all of the comments received, we are finalizing the provisions included in the September 2013 IFC (78 FR 57800) with the following modifications to § 411.39:
• Paragraph (a), we are removing the definition of “Medicare Secondary Payer conditional payment information” to avoid redundancy and confusion.
• Paragraph (b), we removed language related to Web portal functionality before January 1, 2016.
• Paragraph (c)(1)(iii), we removed the claims refresh requirement.
• Paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v), we revised the language to clarify that a claim, meaning an individual conditional payment amount, or line item, on a payment summary statement, may be disputed once and only once. An individual or entity may submit disputes more than once, but never for the same conditional payment or line item.
• Paragraph (c)(1)(viii), we revised the language to clarify that settlement information must be submitted within no more than 30 days of reaching settlement in order for CMS to remain bound by any final conditional payment amount it provided through the Web portal.
• Paragraph (c)(2), we revised the language to clarify that a final conditional payment amount may be requested at any time after a recovery case has been posted on the Web portal.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (February 2, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We have determined that the effect of this final rule on the economy and the Medicare program is not economically significant, since it imposes certain requirements on the Agency to merely improve its current mechanism for providing conditional payment information to beneficiaries, their attorneys or other representatives, and authorized applicable plans.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to less than $38.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. We have determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because there is and will be no change in the administration of the MSP provisions. Therefore, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 for proposed rules of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We have determined that this final rule will not have a significant effect on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals because there is and would be no change in the administration of the MSP provisions. Therefore, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that threshold is approximately $146 million. This final rule has no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector because there is and will be no change in the administration of the MSP provisions.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this final rule does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this final rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Kidney diseases, Medicare, Physician referral, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopts as final, the interim rule amending 42 CFR part 411 which was published on September 20, 2013 (78 FR 57800) with the following changes:
Secs. 1102, 1860D-1 through 1860D-42, 1871, and 1877 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395w-101 through 1395w-152, 1395hh, and 1395nn).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The appropriate Medicare contractor has received initial notice of a pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlement, judgment, award, or other payment and has posted the recovery case on the Web portal.
(2)
(i) Access conditional payment information via the MSP Recovery Portal (Web portal).
(ii) Dispute claims.
(iii) Upload settlement information via the Web portal using multifactor authentication.
(c)
(i) The beneficiary, his or her attorney or other representative, or an applicable plan, provides initial notice of a pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers' compensation settlement, judgment, award, or other payment to the appropriate Medicare contractor before accessing information via the Web portal.
(ii) The Medicare contractor compiles claims for which Medicare has paid conditionally that are related to the pending settlement, judgment, award, or other payment within 65 days or less of receiving the initial notice of the pending settlement, judgment, award, or other payment and posts a recovery case on the Web portal.
(iii) If the underlying liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation claim derives from one of the following, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative, must provide notice to CMS' contractor via the Web portal in order to obtain a final conditional payment summary statement and amount through the Web portal:
(A) Alleged exposure to a toxic substance.
(B) Environmental hazard.
(C) Ingestion of pharmaceutical drug or other product or substance.
(D) Implantation of a medical device, joint replacement, or something similar.
(iv) Up to 120 days before the anticipated date of a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney, other representative, or authorized applicable plan may notify CMS, once and only once, via the Web portal, that a settlement, judgment, award or other payment is expected to occur within 120 days or less from the date of notification.
(A) CMS may extend its response timeframe by an additional 30 days when it determines that additional time is required to address claims that Medicare has paid conditionally that are related to the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment in situations including, but not limited to, the following:
(
(
(B) In exceptional circumstances, CMS may further extend its response timeframe by the number of days required to address the issue that resulted from such exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to the following:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(v) The beneficiary, or his or her attorney, or other representative may then address discrepancies by disputing individual conditional payments, once and only once, if he or she believes that the conditional payment included in the most up-to-date conditional payment summary statement is unrelated to the pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.
(A) The dispute process is not an appeals process, nor does it establish a right of appeal regarding that dispute. There will be no administrative or judicial review related to this dispute process.
(B) The beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative may be required to submit supporting documentation in the form and manner specified by the Secretary to support his or her dispute.
(vi) Disputes submitted through the Web portal and after the beneficiary, or his or her attorney, other representative, or authorized applicable plan has notified CMS that he or she is 120 days or less from the anticipated date of a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, are resolved within 11 business days of receipt of the dispute and any required supporting documentation.
(vii) When any disputes have been fully resolved, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative, may download or otherwise request a time and date stamped conditional payment summary statement through the Web portal.
(A) If the download or request is within 3 days of the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, that conditional payment summary statement will constitute Medicare's final conditional payment amount.
(B) If the beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative, is within 3 days of the date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment and any claim disputes have not been fully resolved, he or she may not download or otherwise request a final conditional payment summary statement.
(viii) Within 30 days or less of securing a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, the beneficiary, or his or her attorney or other representative, must submit through the Web portal documentation specified by the Secretary, including, but not limited to the following:
(A) The date of settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, including the total settlement amount, the attorney fee amount or percentage.
(B) Additional costs borne by the beneficiary to obtain his or her settlement, judgment, award, or other payment.
(
(
(ix) Once settlement, judgment, award, or other payment information is received, CMS applies a pro rata reduction to the final conditional payment amount in accordance with § 411.37 and issues a final MSP recovery demand letter.
(2) An applicable plan may only obtain a final conditional payment amount related to a pending liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, or workers' compensation settlement, judgment, award, or other payment in the form and manner described in § 411.38(b) if the applicable plan has properly registered to use the Web portal and has obtained
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On August 10, 2015, HUD published in the
This document opens the public comment period solely for the provisions addressed in this document to address concerns that while the proposed rule provided greater flexibility, it lacked the greater certainty to which HUD committed, and how HUD would provide such certainty.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the document.
Aaron Hutchinson, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-3994 (this is not a toll- free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll- free Federal Relay Service at 800-877- 8339 (this is not a toll-free number).
On August 10, 2015, at 80 FR 47874, HUD published a document that proposed to amend its regulations, at 24 CFR part 200, subpart H, that govern the process by which HUD reviews the previous participation and performance of applicants seeking to participate in HUD's multifamily and healthcare programs. Currently, all principals seeking to participate in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs must certify that all principals involved in a proposed project have acted responsibly and have honored their legal, financial, and contractual obligations in their previous participation in HUD programs, in certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in projects assisted or insured by state and local government housing finance agencies. HUD's regulations require applicants to complete a very detailed and lengthy certification form (HUD Form 2530)
The August 10, 2015, proposed rule proposed to clarify which individuals and entities will be reviewed, the purpose of the review, and the review to be undertaken. HUD proposed by targeting more closely the individuals and actions that would be subject to prior participation review, HUD would not only bring greater certainty and clarity to the process but would provide HUD with flexibility as to the necessary previous participation review for entities and individuals that is not possible in a one-size fits all approach.
The public comment period on the proposed rule closed on October 9,
Several comments expressed concern that the proposed regulations were overly broad and therefore would be open to various interpretations, which would complicate the review process for applicants and participants rather than simplify the process. The commenters suggested that in order to obtain flexibility in the review process, which the commenters supported, the approach in the proposed rule sacrificed specificity and certainty. Commenters suggested that HUD revise the proposed regulations to provide the greater certainty and specificity they need. Other commenters suggested that HUD issue guidance when HUD issues the final regulations to provide the specificity and certainty that the proposed regulations lack according to the commenters.
Through this document, HUD proposes to use an approach that HUD has taken in certain of its other regulations and that is to provide regulations that clearly document the regulatory requirements imposed, but provide in a supplemental document, a document referenced in the regulations, that will address the specific procedures to be followed.
For the previous participation review process, HUD proposes to issue with its final regulations a “Processing Guide for Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs' Participants” (Guide). This Guide, which will be posted on HUD's Web site, will provide the details on procedures which commenters are seeking and which HUD submits is more appropriate for a process guide than for regulatory text. The Guide will provide applicants for and participants in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs the detailed information desired on the previous participation review process, and provide HUD with the ability to make changes as may be needed to address specific circumstances that may arise in the previous participation process and to keep up-to-date with changes that may arise in the housing market. One of the longstanding complaints about HUD's previous participation review process is that the process and the regulations that govern the process are very outdated and do not keep up with the times. HUD submits that a lean set of regulations supplemented by a detailed processing Guide that is subject to notice and comment for any significant changes is the best approach for this process and one that will endure successfully for some time. The appendix to this document provides the proposed Guide for which HUD is seeking public comment for a period of 30 days. The Guide, in addition to elaborating upon terms and provisions in the proposed rule, also addresses “flags,” which are not addressed in either the existing regulations or proposed regulations. Flags refer to an issue or issues in a prospective participant's application for which further review is necessary. The Guide also includes certain information collection requirements but those requirements are ones which are already included in HUD's 2530 form and which already have an approval number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. For example, the Guide requires organizational information to be presented in an organizational chart instead of merely listed. However, the Guide makes clear that not every entity identified in the organizational chart will be considered a Controlling Participant, as defined in the regulation.
In addition to publication in the
In addition to issuance of the proposed Guide for comment, HUD also seeks comment on the following additional provisions that are proposed to be included or revised in the regulation.
HUD proposes to revise § 200.210 (Policy) to clarify that it is HUD's policy, in accordance with the intent of the National Housing Act, and with other applicable federal statutes, participants in HUD's housing and healthcare programs be responsible individuals and organizations who will honor their legal, financial and contractual obligations. HUD would further clarify that it will review the prior participation of Controlling Participants, as defined in the August 10, 2015, proposed rule, as a prerequisite to participation in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs listed in § 200.214.
HUD would further revise the policy language in § 200.210 to advise that the regulations in 24 CFR part 200, subpart H, as proposed to be amended by the August 10, 2015, proposed rule would be supplemented by the Processing Guide for Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs' Participants (Guide), which would be made available on HUD's Web site at
In § 200.212, the Definition section, HUD proposes to include a definition of “Risk.” While § 200.220 of the proposed rule addresses “risk,” HUD is proposing to add a definition of this term that would clarify that in order to determine whether a Controlling Participant's participation in a project would constitute an unacceptable risk, HUD's FHA Commissioner must determine whether the Controlling Participant could be expected to participate in the Covered Project (as defined in the August 10, 2015, proposed rule) in a manner consistent with furthering HUD's purpose of supporting and providing decent, safe and affordable housing for the public. The Commissioner's review of Previous Participation shall consider compliance with applicable statutes, regulations and program requirements. HUD would clarify that the FHA Commissioner must consider the Controlling Participant's
This Processing Guide (Guide) supplements HUD's Previous Participation Review regulations in 24 CFR part 200, subpart H. The Guide defines controlling participants for previous participation review, new flag approval, and rejection guidance and flag protocols in federal programs of certain participants seeking to take part in multifamily housing and healthcare programs administered by HUD's Office of Housing. The Guide aids in clarifying and simplifying the process by which HUD reviews previous participation of participants that have decision making authority over their projects as one component of HUD's responsibility to assess financial and operational risk to projects in these programs.
This Guide updates and clarifies previous procedures and supersedes outstanding policy and guidance concerning previous participation review found in the following: Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Guide Handbook 4430.G, Multifamily Asset Management and Project Servicing Handbook 4350.1, Healthcare Mortgage Insurance Program Handbook 4232.1, and Mortgage Insurance for Hospitals 4615.1. HUD will incorporate elements of this Guide into these handbooks. In addition, the Guide supersedes the Previous Participation (HUD-2530) Handbook 4065.1.
This Guide applies to Covered Projects administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing, the Office of Grant Administration and the Office of Healthcare Programs, as listed in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 200 subpart H.
The Covered Projects are those that are insured under the following sections of the National Housing Act: Sections 213, 220, 231, 223(d), 221(d)(4), 241(a), 223(f), 232/223(f), 242/223(f), 223(a)(7), 232, 232(i), 242, 542(b) and 542(c).
The Guide also applies to non-insured projects that include Section 202 or Section 811 Capital Advances or Direct Loans, Section 236 loans, or Subsidized Projects in which 20 percent or more of the units now receive or will receive a subsidy in the form of:
• Interest reduction payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1);
• Rental Assistance Payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1); Rent Supplement payments under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); or
• Project based rental assistance pursuant to housing assistance payment contracts under Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (but not including project-based assistance provided under the Housing Choice Voucher program administered by HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing).
For the Sections 223(a)(7), 223(f), 241(a), 232(i) and 223(d) programs Controlling Participants are only subject to previous participation review if they were not previously approved to participate in that project.
Any new Controlling Participant of a Covered Project requires consent by HUD.
Program offices may waive any portion of this Guide that is not regulatory subject, however, to a good cause justification as required by HUD for all waivers. HUD expects waivers to be rare and in response to unique circumstances meeting the intent of HUD's Previous Participation Review regulations.
The below sections outline who is subject to a previous participation review, submission requirements, review procedures, approval and rejection processes as well as participant flagging.
Previous Participation Review is required for Controlling Participants. In connection with each Triggering Event, Mortgagees in insured projects and entities serving in the Specified Capacities listed below in non-insured projects shall provide to HUD a list of all Controlling Participants. Controlling Participants are those entities and individuals (i) serving as a Specified Capacity with respect to a Covered Project and (ii) the entities and individuals in control of the Specified Capacities. At least one natural person must be identified as a Controlling Participant for each Specified Capacity. The chart below shows the Specified Capacities for the listed programs.
1. Entities and individuals owning, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of a Specified Capacity.
2. Any officers and other executive management (including Executive Director and other similar capacities) of the Specified Capacity.
3. The controlling owners (entities and/or individuals) of the entity that controls the Specified Capacity.
4. Managers or managing members of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs).
5. General partners of limited partnerships, including “administrative” general partners or other general partners if they exercise day-to-day control over the entity.
6. Partners in a general partnership.
7. Executive Director (or equivalent position) of a non-profit sponsor of a Specified Capacity.
8. With respect to non-profit Borrowers under the Section 242 program, the executive management of the Borrower and the members of the Board of Directors that HUD determines have control over the finances or operation of the hospital.
9. Officers of a for-profit corporation's Board of Directors.
10. Controlling stockholders of a corporation.
11. Trustees of a trust.
12. For real estate investment trusts (REITs), the REIT itself, the chief executive officer (or equivalent position) and all company officers (except those officers determined by HUD not to exercise day-to-day control over the REIT, the Specified Capacity or the Covered Project) must file.
13. For insured projects, if applicable, the person (people) and/or entity (entities) to be listed on the Regulatory Agreement Non-Recourse Debt section.
14. Any other person or entity determined by HUD to exercise day-to-day control over a Specified Capacity. This may include any officers, directors or members of an executive management team (even of excluded entities) who would otherwise not be required to make a submission if they are exercising control over the Specified Capacity.
If the applicant or Mortgagee has any reason to believe that any Controlling Participant is not of sound mind or body or is otherwise incapacitated, such information must be disclosed to HUD to review and determine whether another individual is acting as a Controlling Participant.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
An organization chart must be submitted for each Specified Capacity and for any entity within the organization chart if requested by HUD. Organization charts are visual representations of the ownership structure of an organization. All organization charts submitted in connection with a Triggering Event are considered part of the application for HUD review and subject to the certifications stating that the application is true and complete. The organization chart must be clear enough so that a person unfamiliar with the Covered Project and the entities involved can understand the ownership and control structure. The organization chart must include the following:
1. Clearly show all tiers of the ownership structure, including the members or owners of the entities listed.
2. Show all participants, not just those who the Lender or Applicant considers to be principals or Controlling Participants. To the extent ownership interests are identified as widely held, the Applicant must provide any information requested by HUD regarding such interests.
3. Shows percentages of ownership and role in the entity (
4. At least one natural person, and not just entities.
5. Each Specified Capacity must be shown on a separate organization chart (
6. Anyone on an organizational chart that is debarred, suspended, or is subject to a Limited Denial of Participation (LDP), a voluntary abstention or a voluntary exclusion may not participate in the Covered Project.
7. With respect to each entity on the organization chart, the executive management teams (for example, all officers such as CEO, CFO, President, Executive Director, etc., but not department heads or lower level management) and any members of a Board of Directors must be disclosed to HUD even if such individuals are not considered to be Controlling Participants and do not need to file Previous Participation Review submissions.
To fulfill the Previous Participation Review requirements, applicable controlling participants must file a Previous Participation Certification. Participants may utilize either the electronic Active Partners Performance System (APPS)
The following chart indicates which filing options are available for which
If there
If there are current flags in the system, HUD staff will review:
• The comments in the system related to the flag
• The lender or participant's explanation of the flag and any mitigation of risk associated with the flag.
• Whether flags need to be resolved.
• The flag history in the system to assess patterns of misconduct and risk to the Department.
Based upon this review, including review of the certifications, HUD will determine whether or not the Controlling Participant poses an unacceptable Risk to the Covered Project, in accordance with the definition in 24 CFR 200.212, namely whether the Controlling Participant could be expected to participate in the Covered Project in a manner consistent with furthering the Department's purpose of supporting and providing decent, safe and affordable housing for the public. Based on this determination, HUD may approve, disapprove, limit, or otherwise condition the continued participation of the Controlling Participant in the Triggering Event. HUD will disapprove a Controlling Participant if the Controlling Participant is suspended, debarred or subject to other restriction pursuant to 2 CFR part 180 or 2 CFR part 2424. HUD may disapprove a Controlling Participant if HUD determines: (i) The Controlling Participant is materially restricted, including voluntarily, from doing business with HUD (other than the restrictions listed above) or any other
If a recommendation for rejection is proposed, HUD staff will notify the participant, or lender, if applicable, in advance of the recommendation. This notification will allow an opportunity for the participant to provide additional arguments for HUD's consideration to preserve processing efficiency and cut down on requests for reconsideration.
Participants have the right to request a reconsideration of HUD decisions rejecting participants. Requests for reconsideration must be filed in writing. Participants may provide support for their reconsideration or additional information that was not previously provided. Please see the below table for the officials responsible for rendering reconsideration decisions applicable to each program area. The decision rendered by the officials below is final agency action.
HUD utilizes flags in the APPS system as a way to assess risk associated with participants in Office of Multifamily Housing and Office of Healthcare Programs projects. A flag does not automatically exclude an applicant from participation in HUD's programs; however, flags are considered risk factors that require appropriate mitigation, where possible. Flags are to be a meaningful representation of risk, and therefore, they should not be placed for minor infractions that do not pose a risk to HUD. HUD will notify participants in writing when flags are placed.
HUD has developed three flag tiers, which provide for varying levels of risk to HUD. Tier 1 flags are elevated risk to HUD. HUD considers Tier 1 flags to be a significant long-term risk to HUD and warrant significant mitigation in new transactions. Tier 2 flags are considered an ongoing risk to HUD. For Tier 2 flags that have a resolution date (as listed in the chart below), flags will not be removed until the time period has expired even if the action has been resolved earlier. This is considered a risk factor in production and asset management transactions. Tier 3 flags are considered a single risk to HUD and will be removed when the reason for the flag is corrected.
Tier 1 flags warrant permanent consideration when reviewing Controlling Participants for their participation in triggering events.
Tier 2 flags warrant consideration for an extended period of time when reviewing Controlling Participants for their participation in Triggering Events, even after the underlying reason for the flag is resolved. A “Repeated” Offense means there are three or more occurrences.
Tier 3 flags relate to a single and/or less serious incident of non-compliance and can be resolved and removed.
HUD will not make any significant changes to the Guide without first offering advance notice and the opportunity for comment for a period of not less than 30 days.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the Columbia River in Hood River, OR. This action is necessary to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during a cross-channel swimming event and would do so by prohibiting unauthorized persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 16, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0370 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Ken Lawrenson, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email
The Roy Webster Cross-Channel Swim is an annual event that has been occuring for the last 74 years on the Columbia River in the vicinity of Hood River, OR. Registered participants attend the event on Labor Day each year and are ferried across the Columbia River from the Hood River Marina to the Washington shore to start the event. From there the swimmers jump off the ferry and swim back across the river, following a swim lane that is lined with volunteers in sailboats, kayaks and paddleboards. Approximately 300 swimmers participate in this event annually.
The Captain of the Port, Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with cross-channel swims could be a safety concern for the event participants, any other mariners transiting the area during the event hours, and a potential threat to the marine environment.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of event participants, the marine environment and the protection of the navigable waterway during the scheduled event. The Coast
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone on Labor Day of each year between 6 a.m. and noon. As the event consists of swimmers crossing the navigable channel, the Coast Guard feels that it would be necessary to establish a safety zone that would cover all waters of the Columbia River between river mile 169 and river mile 170. Vessels needing to transit through the safety zone during the event would be permitted to enter the safety zone only by obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text the Coast Guard is proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, short duration, and the event's long history. Commercial vessel traffic would be able to transit the area with permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately six hours that would prohibit entry within a specified section of the Columbia River in the vicinity of Hood River, OR. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.
(2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of inquiry.
In 2010, the U.S. Copyright Office, acting pursuant to section 407 of title 17 and following a public rulemaking process, adopted an interim rule governing mandatory deposit of electronic works that are not available in a physical format. The interim rule refers to such works as “electronic works published in the United States and available only online” (or “online-only works”). The interim rule created a limited exception to the Register's longstanding regulatory exemption that online-only works are not subject to mandatory deposit requirements. It also established best edition criteria and regulations as to electronic serials requested pursuant to section 407. The Library has adopted policies for the use of such materials, including limiting public access to deposited works to dedicated terminals located at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. These policies were anticipated and discussed during the rulemaking process, but are not memorialized in the regulations.
The Library of Congress is now interested in extending the interim rule to apply to online-only books and sound recordings. Because over six years have passed since the interim rule was adopted, and because the interim rule was intended to inform a more permanent solution and rule, the Copyright Office is initiating a notice of inquiry to further guide its work in this area. The Copyright Office seeks feedback from affected communities regarding the experience with mandatory deposit of electronic serials, generally, as well as comments pertaining to the potential application of mandatory deposit to online-only books and sound recordings, specifically. Based on this feedback, the Office will solicit further written comments and/or invite stakeholder meetings before moving to a rulemaking process.
Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 18, 2016.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using
Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights,
Mandatory deposit provisions, sometimes called “legal deposit” in foreign countries, permit national libraries to demand creative works for their respective collections pursuant to applicable laws, rights, restrictions, regulations, and fines. In the United States, the authority to demand, exempt, and otherwise regulate such works vests with the Register of Copyrights, who administers section 407 of title 17 of the United States Code, part of the Copyright Act.
Section 407 provides that the owner of copyright, or of the exclusive right of publication, in a work published in the United States is required to deposit two complete copies (or, in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) of the “best edition” of the work with the Copyright Office
Section 202.19 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth a number of rules governing the mandatory deposit of copies and phonorecords under section 407, including certain best edition requirements. Appended to part 202 is a list, entitled “ `Best Edition' of Published Copyrighted Works for the Collection of the Library of Congress” (referred to as the “Best Edition Statement”), which sets forth the best edition criteria for particular categories of works.
Section 407 further provides that deposit is to be made within three months after such publication.
These general provisions, however, are subject to limitations. Section 407 provides that the Register of Copyrights may by regulation “exempt any categories of material from the deposit requirements of [that] section, or require deposit of only one copy or phonorecord with respect to any categories.”
Finally, the registration and deposit provisions of section 408 as to published works generally require the submission for examination of two complete copies of the best edition.
When regulations implementing section 407 were first promulgated by the Copyright Office in 1978, the Office adopted a broad exemption from the mandatory deposit requirements for “[l]iterary works, including computer programs and automated databases, published in the United States only in the form of machine readable copies (such as magnetic tape or disks, punch cards, or the like) from which the work cannot ordinarily be visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or device.”
On January 25, 2010, after a period of notice and public comment, the Copyright Office adopted a new interim rule to address the mandatory deposit requirements for published electronic works that are only made available online.
The interim rule did two key things. First, it codified the Office's longstanding practice of exempting online-only works from the requirements of mandatory deposit as a general matter.
In extending mandatory deposit requirements to online-only serials, the Office observed that “the Internet has grown to become a fundamental tool for the publication and dissemination of millions of works of authorship.”
Under the interim rule, a publisher does not need to proactively deposit copies of electronic serials with the Copyright Office.
The interim rule also provides for public access to deposited works, stating that “[c]opies or phonorecords deposited in response to a demand must be able to be accessed and reviewed by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, and the Library's authorized users on an ongoing basis.”
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be as similar as possible to the access provided to analog works.
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be limited, at any one time, to two Library of Congress authorized users.
• Library of Congress authorized users will access the electronic works via a secure server over a secure network that serves Capitol Hill facilities and remote Library of Congress locations. The term “Library of Congress authorized users” includes Library staff, contractors, and registered researchers, and Members, staff and officers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Library will not make the copyrighted works available to the public over the Internet without rights holders' permissions.
• Authorized users may print from electronic works to the extent allowed by the fair use provisions of the copyright law (17 U.S.C. 107 and 108(f)), as is the case with traditional publications. However, users may not reproduce or distribute (
In accordance with these policies, the Library developed a system for providing and controlling access to electronic serials collected under the interim rule. The serials are stored on a server located in the Library's Capitol Hill facilities. The electronic files can be viewed on two secure terminals located in the Microform & Electronic Resources Center (“MERC”), located in the Library of Congress's Jefferson Building, which together constitute the sole point of public access to the files. The terminals have a web-based interface for searching and browsing the electronic serials collected by the Library. Individual articles are opened and read using customized viewing software that prevents users from being able to save
In adopting the interim rule in 2010, the Copyright Office emphasized that “[t]he rule is interim, and not final, because the Office anticipates that the experience of issuing and responding to demands for online-only works will raise additional issues that should be considered before the regulation becomes final,
Although the 2010 interim rule requires publishers to deposit only electronic serials—and only when the Office issues a demand for such a work—in promulgating that rule, the Register noted that mandatory deposit might be expanded over time to encompass new categories of online-only works.
The Library has requested that the Copyright Office issue demands for electronic books that have been published solely through online channels. To be clear, in the case of a book published in both physical and electronic formats, the publisher would still be required to deposit the physical format as the “best edition” under section 407, rather than the electronic format.
The Library has some experience in collecting, preserving and providing limited access to electronic deposits of text-based works under the existing interim rule for electronic serials. But there are some notable differences between online-only books and electronic serials. For example, many electronic serials, such as those in certain commercial journal databases, are accessed on a subscription basis and viewed via a live internet connection. Indeed, it was this fact that originally led the Office to adopt mandatory deposit requirements for electronic serials. As the Office noted in the 2010 interim rule, “subscriptions are typically `access only,' and rarely allow the Library to acquire a `best edition' copy for its collections.” The lack of mandatory deposit in this context thus “place[d] the long-term preservation of the works at risk.”
Under any rule requiring mandatory deposit of online-only books, the Library proposes to provide public access to such books under the same policies adopted in the 2010 interim rule (which could be included in the regulatory provision itself), which, as noted above, are as follows:
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be as similar as possible to the access provided to analog works.
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be limited, at any one time, to two Library of Congress authorized users.
• Library of Congress authorized users will access the electronic works via a secure server over a secure network that serves Capitol Hill facilities and remote Library of Congress locations. The term “Library of Congress authorized users” includes Library staff, contractors, and registered researchers, and Members, staff and officers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Library will not make the copyrighted works available to the public over the Internet without rights holders' permissions.
• Authorized users may print from electronic works to the extent allowed by the fair use provisions of the copyright law (17 U.S.C. 107 and 108(f)), as is the case with traditional publications. However, users may not reproduce or distribute (
The Library has also communicated to the Copyright Office its interest in acquiring online-only sound recordings
As with online-only books, it seems that many, if not most, published sound recordings are available not only via subscription services, but also for purchase and download. As explained above, this is distinct from electronic serials, many of which are accessible to end users only through a subscription service. The Office invites comment on this difference as it may relate to the advisability of extending on-demand deposit requirements to online-only sound recordings, including the need for such mandatory deposit to further the Library's collection and preservation goals.
Under any rule requiring mandatory deposit of online-only sound recordings, the Library would provide public access to such recordings. The Library currently has a system by which authorized users can access and listen to digitized copies of physical sound recordings collected through other means at the Madison Building of the Library of Congress. Currently, users may access such recordings through six dedicated computer terminals.
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be as similar as possible to the access provided to analog works.
• Access to electronic works received through mandatory deposit will be limited, at any one time, to two Library of Congress authorized users.
• Library of Congress authorized users will access the electronic works via a secure server over a secure network that serves Capitol Hill facilities and remote Library of Congress locations. The term “Library of Congress authorized users” includes Library staff, contractors, and registered researchers, and Members, staff and officers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Library will not make the copyrighted works available to the public over the Internet without rights holders' permissions.
• Users may not reproduce or distribute (
The Office invites written comments on the general subjects below. A party choosing to respond to this notice of inquiry need not address every subject, but the Office requests that responding parties clearly identify and separately address each subject for which a response is submitted. In responding, please identify your particular interest in and experience with these issues.
1. Please comment on the efficacy of the 2010 interim rule, including whether it adequately addresses the digital collection and preservation needs of the Library of Congress, whether it has adequately addressed the concerns of affected parties, and whether it is a good framework for further developing section 407.
2. Please comment on the Library's adopted policies as to the interim rule and/or their application to online-only books and/or sound recordings.
3. Please comment on the information technology, security, and/or other requirements that should apply to the Library's receipt and storage of, and public access to, any online-only books and/or sound recordings collected under section 407.
4. Please provide comments and observations regarding the application of “best edition” requirements to online-only books and/or sound recordings, including whether and how the “best edition” criteria for electronic serials found in part 202 of 37 CFR, appendix B, or the guidelines from the Library's Recommended Formats Statement, might or might not be adapted to address these additional categories of online-only works.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern administrative changes of a previously approved regulation and emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from aerospace coating assembly and coating operations and metal, plastic and pleasure craft parts and products coating operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these activities under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 16, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0070 at
Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following EKAPCD rules: Rule 103.1, “Inspection of Public Records,” Rule 410.4, “Metal, Plastic, and Pleasure Craft Parts and Products Coating Operations,” and Rule 410.8, “Aerospace Assembly and Coating Operations.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB) is proposing rules for investigations conducted on the Board's own initiative pursuant to the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015.
Comments are due by June 15, 2016. Replies are due by July 15, 2016.
Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at
Scott M. Zimmerman at (202) 245-0386. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Section 12 of the
The Board accordingly proposes regulations, to be set forth at 49 CFR part 1122, establishing procedures for investigations conducted on the Board's own initiative pursuant to Section 12 of the
The
Within 30 days after initiating an investigation, the Board must provide notice to parties under investigation stating the basis for such investigation. The Board may only investigate issues that are of national or regional significance. Parties under investigation have a right to file a written statement describing all or any facts and circumstances concerning a matter under investigation, and the Board has an obligation to separate the investigative and decisionmaking functions of Board staff to the extent practicable.
Investigations must be dismissed if they are not concluded with “administrative finality within one year after commencement.”
The
To implement this statutory framework for investigations, the Board is proposing a three-stage process,
During the Preliminary Fact-Finding stage, Board staff would conduct a nonpublic inquiry regarding an issue to determine if there is a potential violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A, of national or regional significance that warrants a Board-Initiated Investigation. Information identifying a potential violation of national or regional significance could come from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to, third party tips, referrals from other agencies or Congress, reports submitted to the Board, or news articles.
The goal of Preliminary Fact-Finding would be for Board staff to decide whether to close its fact-gathering or request authorization to open a Board-Initiated Investigation and determine if a violation has in fact occurred.
As a matter of policy, Preliminary Fact-Finding generally would be nonpublic and confidential, subject to the provisions found in § 1122.6,
To commence a Board-Initiated Investigation (which statutorily must conclude with administrative finality within one year), the Board would issue an Order of Investigation and provide a copy of the order to the parties under investigation within 30 days of issuance.
As with Preliminary Fact-Finding, Board-Initiated Investigations generally would be nonpublic and confidential, except as provided by § 1122.6, in order to protect the integrity of the process and to protect parties under investigation from possibly unwarranted reputational damage or other harm. Parties who are not the subject of the investigation would not be able to intervene or participate as a matter of right in Board-Initiated Investigations. Section 1122.8.
The goal of the Board-Initiated Investigation would be for the Investigating Officer(s) to decide whether to recommend to the Board that it dismiss the investigation or open a proceeding to determine if a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A occurred. To assist in making this determination, the Investigating Officer(s) would be able to interview or depose witnesses, inspect property and facilities, and request the production of any information, documents, books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements or other records, in any form or media, potentially relevant or material to the basis for the Board-Initiated Investigation, with the power of subpoena to compel the production of documents or testimony of witnesses, if necessary.
Under the proposed regulations, the Investigating Officer(s) would be required to conclude the Board-Initiated Investigation no later than 275 days after issuance of the Order of Investigation and, at that time, submit to the Board and the parties under investigation any recommendations made as a result of the Board-Initiated Investigation and a summary of the findings that support such recommendations.
The Board recognizes that potential violations that are “of national or regional significance” could have serious and far-reaching consequences. The Board, therefore, will endeavor to resolve Board-Initiated Investigations as soon as possible. To be clear, 275 days would be the
Investigating Officer(s), in their discretion and time permitting, would have the option of presenting (orally or in writing) their recommendations and/or summary of findings to parties under investigation
If the Investigating Officer(s) were to decide not to use the optional provisions described above, parties subject to investigation would still be allowed to submit written statements to
Upon receipt of the recommendations and summary of findings from the Investigating Officers, the Board would decide whether to open a public Formal Board Proceeding to determine whether a provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A had been violated. If so, the Board would issue a public Order to Show Cause as described in § 1122.5(c) and (d). The Order to Show Cause would state the basis for the proceeding and set forth a procedural schedule.
The proposed regulations described above and set forth below implement the investigative authority conferred to the Board in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, Section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Section 605(b). The impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule.
The proposed regulations here only specify procedures related to investigations of matters of regional or national significance conducted on the Board's own initiative and do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the RFA. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Investigations.
1. Comments are due by June 15, 2016. Replies are due by July 15, 2016.
2. A copy of this decision will be served upon Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X, subchapter B, of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1122 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144, 11701.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
This part applies only to matters subject to Section 12 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, 49 U.S.C. 11701.
The Board staff may, in its discretion, conduct nonpublic Preliminary Fact-Finding, subject to the provisions of
The Board may, in its discretion, commence a nonpublic Board-Initiated Investigation of any matter of national or regional significance that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A, subject to the provisions of § 1122.6, by issuing an Order of Investigation. Orders of Investigation shall state the basis for the Board-Initiated Investigation and identify the Investigating Officer(s). The Board may add or remove Investigating Officer(s) during the course of a Board-Initiated Investigation. To the extent practicable, an Investigating Officer shall not participate in any decisionmaking functions in any Formal Board Proceeding(s) opened as a result of any Board-Initiated Investigation(s) that he or she conducted.
(a) Not later than 30 days after commencing a Board-Initiated Investigation, the Investigating Officer(s) shall provide the parties under investigation a copy of the Order of Investigation. If the Board adds or removes Investigating Officer(s) during the course of the Board-Initiated Investigation, it shall provide written notification to the parties under investigation.
(b) Not later than 275 days after issuance of the Order of Investigation, the Investigating Officer(s) shall submit to the Board and the parties under investigation:
(1) Any recommendations made as a result of the Board-Initiated Investigation; and
(2) A summary of the findings that support such recommendations.
(c) Not later than 90 days after receiving the recommendations and summary of findings, the Board shall decide whether to dismiss the Board-Initiated Investigation if no further action is warranted or initiate a Formal Board Proceeding to determine whether any provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A, has been violated in accordance with Section 12 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015. The Board shall dismiss any Board-Initiated Investigation that is not concluded with administrative finality within one year after the date on which it was commenced.
(d) A Formal Board Proceeding commences upon issuance of a public Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause shall state the basis for the Formal Board Proceeding and set forth a procedural schedule.
(a) All information and documents obtained under § 1122.3 or § 1122.4, whether or not obtained pursuant to a Board request or subpoena, and all activities conducted by the Board under this part prior to the opening of a Formal Board Proceeding, shall be treated as nonpublic by the Board and its staff except to the extent that:
(1) The Board directs or authorizes the public disclosure of activities conducted under this part prior to the opening of a Formal Board Proceeding;
(2) The information or documents are made a matter of public record during the course of an administrative proceeding; or
(3) Disclosure is required by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 or other relevant provision of law.
(b) Procedures by which persons submitting information to the Board pursuant to this part of title 49, chapter X, subchapter B, of the Code of Federal Regulations may specifically seek confidential treatment of information for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act disclosure are set forth in § 1122.7. A request for confidential treatment of information for purposes of Freedom of Information Act disclosure shall not, however, prevent disclosure for law enforcement purposes or when disclosure is otherwise found appropriate in the public interest and permitted by law.
Any person that produces documents to the Board pursuant to § 1122.3 or § 1122.4 may claim that some or all of the information contained in a particular document or documents is exempt from the mandatory public disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, is information referred to in 18 U.S.C. 1905, or is otherwise exempt by law from public disclosure. In such case, the person making such a claim shall, at the time the person produces the document to the Board, indicate on the document that a request for confidential treatment is being made for some or all of the information in the document. In such case, the person making such a claim also shall file a brief statement specifying the specific statutory justification for non-disclosure of the information in the document for which confidential treatment is claimed. If the person states that the information comes within the exception in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) for trade secrets and commercial or financial information, and the information is responsive to a subsequent FOIA request to the Board, 49 CFR 1001.4 shall apply.
No party who is not the subject of a Board-Initiated Investigation may intervene or participate as a matter of right in any such Board-Initiated Investigation under this part.
(a) The Investigating Officer(s), in connection with any Board-Initiated Investigation, may interview or depose witnesses, inspect property and facilities, and request and require the production of any information, documents, books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements, or other records, in any form or media, potentially relevant or material to the issues related to the Board-Initiated Investigation. The Investigating Officer(s), in connection with a Board-Initiated Investigation, also may issue subpoenas, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 1321, to compel the attendance of witnesses, the production of any of the records and other documentary evidence listed above, and access to property and facilities.
(b) With regard for due process, the Board may for good cause exclude a particular attorney from further participation in any Board-Initiated Investigation in which the attorney is obstructing the Board-Initiated Investigation.
Transcripts, if any, of investigative testimony shall be recorded solely by the official reporter or other person or by means authorized by the Board or by the Investigating Officer(s).
(a) When producing documents under this part, the producing party shall submit a statement certifying that such person has made a diligent search for the responsive documents and is producing all the documents called for
(b) If any responsive documents are withheld because of a claim of the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or other applicable privilege, the producing party shall submit a list of such documents which shall, for each document, identify the attorney involved, the client involved, the date of the document, the person(s) shown on the document to have prepared and/or sent the document, and the person(s) shown on the document to have received copies of the document.
(c) Under this part, any person making false statements under oath is subject to criminal penalties for perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes false or fraudulent statements, whether under oath or otherwise, or who falsifies, conceals, or covers up a material fact, or submits any false writing or document, knowing it to contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent information is subject to the criminal penalties set forth in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Any party subject to a Board-Initiated Investigation may, at any time during the course of a Board-Initiated Investigation, submit to the Board written statements of facts or circumstances, with any relevant supporting evidence, concerning the subject of that investigation.
(a) After conducting sufficient investigation and prior to submitting recommendations and a summary of findings to the Board, the Investigating Officer, in his or her discretion, may inform the parties under investigation (orally or in writing) of the proposed recommendations and summary of findings that may be submitted to the Board. If the Investigating Officer so chooses, he or she shall also advise the parties under investigation that they may submit a written statement, as explained below, to the Investigating Officer prior to the consideration by the Board of the recommendations and summary of findings. This optional process is in addition to, and does not limit in any way, the rights of parties under investigation otherwise provided for in this part.
(b) Unless otherwise provided for by the Investigating Officer, parties under investigation may submit written statement(s) described above within 14 days after of being informed by the Investigating Officer of the proposed recommendation(s) and summary of findings, and such statements shall be no more than 15 pages, double spaced on 8
(c) Such written statements, if the parties under investigation choose to submit, shall be submitted to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall provide any written statement(s) from the parties under investigation to the Board at the same time that he or she submits his or her recommendations and summary of findings to the Board.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the Agency's proposed information collection for the Child and Adult Care Food Program. This collection is a revision of a currently approved information collection.
Written comments must be received on or before July 18, 2016.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the proposed information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Andrea Farmer, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Andrea Farmer, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302.
This is a revision of a currently approved collection. It revises reporting burden as a result of increases in the number of sponsoring organizations and facilities, and an increase in the number of enrolled participants, who are required to submit information. It also adds a new requirement for written documentation when requesting substitutions for fluid milk or food components for participants with special non-disability, dietary needs. This requirement is added by the regulation
This revision removes two reporting requirements that had been duplicated in the current burden estimate (
Refer to the table below for estimated total annual burden.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, grantee of FTZ 110, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 10, 2016.
FTZ 110 was approved by the FTZ Board on October 30, 1984 (Board Order 279, 49 FR 44516, November 7, 1984) and expanded on March 29, 2002 (Board Order 1214, 67 FR 17048-17049, April 9, 2002).
The current zone includes the following site:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would include all of Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe, Torrance, Socorro and Valencia Counties, New Mexico, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Albuquerque, New Mexico U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include the existing site as a “magnet” site. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. No subzones/usage-driven sites are being requested at this time. The application would have no impact on FTZ 110's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 18, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 1, 2016.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Miami-Dade County, grantee of FTZ 281, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Alpha Marketing Network, Inc. d/b/a AMN Distributors (AMN), located in Miami, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 3, 2016.
The AMN facility is located within Site 41 of FTZ 281. The facility is used for the kitting of Irish cream wine gift sets. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt AMN from customs duty payments on foreign status materials used in export production. On its domestic sales, AMN would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to finished Irish cream wine gift sets (4.2¢/liter) for the inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Irish cream gift boxes/paper/master; drinking glasses; and, Irish cream wine (duty rate ranges from free to 28.5%; 4.2¢/liter).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 27, 2016.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
The Capital District Regional Planning Commission, grantee of FTZ 121, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Townsend Leather Company, Inc. (Townsend), located in Johnstown, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 9, 2016.
The Townsend facility is located within Site 7 of FTZ 121. The facility is used to produce finished upholstery grade leather, cut parts and product samples. The products are used in aviation/motor vehicle/yacht interiors, interior design and fashion accessories. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Townsend from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Townsend would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to finished upholstery grade leather, cut parts and product samples (duty rates range from free to 2.9%) for the foreign-status upholstery grade pearl crust leather hides (duty rate, 2.8%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 27, 2016.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); request for comments.
The NMFS Southeast Region in collaboration with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare a DEIS to describe and analyze a range of alternatives for management actions to be included in Amendment 41 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 41). Amendment 41 will consider management approaches for the harvest of red snapper from vessels with a Gulf Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit for Reef Fish that do not participate in the Southeast Region Headboat Survey. The purpose of this NOI is to solicit public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS.
Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS will be accepted until June 16, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0057, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Cynthia Meyer, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305; or email:
The Council recently took action to provide more flexibility in managing the harvest of red snapper by the various components of the Gulf reef fish recreational sector. In 2014, the Council established separate private angling and Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) components of the red snapper recreational sector. There has been a decrease over time in the proportion of red snapper harvested by anglers fishing from Federal for-hire vessels and differences in regulatory environments faced by Federal for-hire operators and private anglers. These factors contributed to the Council's decision to restructure the red snapper recreational sector to increase flexibility for each component.
The purpose of Amendment 41 is to develop a management approach for federally permitted Gulf reef fish charter vessels that reduces management uncertainty, provides flexibility and improves economic conditions for the owners and operators of Federal charter vessels, and increases opportunities for anglers who fish from Federal charter vessels to harvest red snapper.
NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, will develop a DEIS for Amendment 41 to describe and analyze alternatives to address the management needs described above, including the “no action” alternative. In accordance with the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, has identified preliminary environmental issues as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. These preliminary issues may not represent the full range of issues that eventually will be evaluated in the DEIS. A copy of the Amendment 41 draft options paper is available at:
Comments on the scope of the DEIS may be submitted in writing to NMFS (see
After the DEIS associated with Amendment 41 is completed, it will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After filing, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS for public comment in the
The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and before adopting final management measures for the amendment. NMFS will submit the consolidated final amendment and supporting FEIS to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
NMFS will announce, through a notification in the
NMFS will announce, through a document published in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and request for public comment.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) seeks input from stakeholders and interested parties to help develop its proposals and positions regarding matters that will be addressed at the upcoming 2016 World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-2016) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), being held from October 25 to November 3, 2016. The results of this Notice and Request for Public Comment will be reflected in NTIA's recommendations for U.S. proposals and positions to the U.S. Department of State, which is coordinating the WTSA-2016 preparatory process.
Comments are due on or before June 16, 2016.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to Vernita D. Harris, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 20230. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
For questions about this Notice contact: Vernita D. Harris, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4686; email:
The U.S. Department of State initiated U.S. preparations for WTSA-2016 in January 2016, which are focused on developing formal U.S. priorities for WTSA-2016.
NTIA, as the principal adviser to the President on telecommunications and information policy, seeks input from stakeholders and other interested parties to develop its recommendations to the U.S. Department of State and to inform any NTIA delegates who will attend the WTSA. NTIA's participation in the U.S. WTSA-2016 preparatory process is intended to ensure that U.S. proposals and positions support the nation's telecommunications, converged communications infrastructure, information and technology policies to promote economic growth and digital innovation, and do not duplicate the standards development processes of other bodies.
The purpose of this Notice and Request for Public Comment is to seek input from stakeholders and other interested parties to share their perspectives as to whether and how the work of the ITU-T results in standards that meet their needs. We are interested in particular on input related to ITU-T restructuring and work methods and rules of procedure.
NTIA requests comment on the questions below. NTIA also welcomes input and comments on any specific issues being advanced by other countries, private sector organizations, and stakeholders for WTSA-2016.
(1) Are there overarching objectives and priorities that the U.S. delegation should adopt for WTSA-2016 and the ITU-T? What is the best way for the U.S. delegation to advance and ultimately achieve these objectives and priorities?
(2) In an environment with a wide range of industry led, multistakeholder standards development organization (SDOs) leading the development of telecommunications and information standards, does an intergovernmental organization, such as the ITU, provide any unique value? How does ITU involvement in global standards development influence, or affect U.S. industry interests in engaging in and promoting the international digital economy?
(3) What do you believe is the percentage of participation of relevant organizations or companies in the ITU-T study groups? What is the value of this participation in the ITU-T study groups? Does this participation meeting the needs of relevant organizations or companies?
(4) Is there a wide implementation of the ITU-T recommendations in the United States or elsewhere by relevant organizations or companies? Why or why not? Can you provide examples of these implementations, if any?
(5) The WTSA-12 Action Plan (see
(6) Are the ITU-T work methods and/or rules of procedure effective? Why or why not? What, if any, modifications to ITU-T Resolutions and Recommendations (see
(7) What are the most important international standardization public policy issues and topics? And why? In what areas or subjects do you believe the ITU-T has a particular role or expertise?
(8) Assuming the ITU-T study group structure remains as it is today, in which study groups and activities should NTIA prioritize its participation and why?
(9) How could cooperation and collaboration between ITU-T and other SDOs be strengthened? How could cooperation and collaboration among the three ITU sectors be strengthened?
(10) The ITU and its membership have identified a standardization gap between developed and developing countries and a need to bridge that gap to ensure greater participation by all countries in the work of the ITU-T. What is the best way to address this gap? Would ITU programs on this topic be better placed within the ITU-D or the ITU-T? What other steps can be taken to bridge this gap?
NTIA invites comment on the questions set forth in this Notice and Request for Public Comment as well as input on any other issues relevant to NTIA's participation in the ITU-T that will assist NTIA in its consultations with the U.S. Department of State and other U.S. government agencies in preparation for WTSA-2016.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain warp stretch woven rayon blend fabrics, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
Effective May 17, 2016.
Maria Goodman, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3651.
The CAFTA-DR Agreement; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), Public Law 109-53; the Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006).
The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Pursuant to this authority, on September 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to CAFTA-DR (
On April 12, 2016, the Chairman of CITA received a request for a Commercial Availability determination (“Request”) from Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman, & Klestadt, LLC, on behalf of Tang Textiles & Apparel, for certain warp stretch woven rayon blend fabrics. On April 14, 2016, in, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by April 26, 2016, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by May 2, 2016, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection to the Request and its ability to supply the subject product.
In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request and providing an offer to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Academic Research Council (ARC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the meeting is permitted by section 8 of the ARC Charter. Specifically, section 8(d) of the ARC Charter states:
The Council will convene in person from time to time at the call of the Assistant Director or the Assistant Director's designee, but at a minimum shall meet annually. Council members may also make additional
The meeting date is Friday, May 20, 2016, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. eastern time.
The meeting location is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Jassmine Okiemen, Research Assistant, Academic Research Council, Office of Research, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at
Section 1013(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(1) establishes the Office of Research (OR) and assigns to it the responsibility of researching, analyzing, and reporting on topics relating to the Bureau's mission, including developments in markets for consumer financial products and services, consumer awareness, and consumer behavior.
The Academic Research Council is a consultative body comprised of scholars that help the Office of Research perform these responsibilities. Section 3 of the ARC Charter states: “The Council will provide the Office of Research advice and feedback on research methodologies, framing research questions, data collection, and analytic strategies. Additionally, the Council will provide both backward- and forward-looking feedback on the Office of Research's research work and will offer input into its research strategic planning process and research agenda.”
The Academic Research Council will discuss methodology and direction for consumer finance research at the Bureau.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Academic Research Council meeting must RSVP to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on May 10, 2016, via
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at the Rayburn House Office Building, Gold Room 2168, Washington, DC, on June 9, 2016. On Thursday, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will conclude at 3:45 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communications, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; USAFA Diversity Update; and Strategic Communications. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 18, 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 Rajeev Ramchand, RAND Corporation, 1100 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202, or call (703) 413-1100 ext. 5096.
Respondents are: Administrators who oversee the PEER forums, Recovery Care Coordinators who refer caregivers to the PEER forums, Military and Family Life Counselors who run the PEER forums, and caregivers who have been referred to participate in the PEER forums.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 18, 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 Amanda Ognibene, 202-453-6637.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs—Professional Development Grants Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
These priorities are:
Projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete a pre-service education program before the end of the award period that enables the individuals to meet the requirements for full State certification or licensure as a teacher through—
(A) Training that leads to a degree in education;
(B) For States allowing a degree in a specific subject area, training that leads to a degree in the subject area; or
(C) Training in a current or new specialized teaching assignment that requires a degree and in which a documented teacher shortage exists;
(ii) Provide one year of induction services, during the award period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they are completing their first year of work as teachers in schools with significant Indian student populations; and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within twelve months of completion.
Projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete a graduate degree in education administration that is provided before the end of the award period and that allows participants to meet the requirements for State certification or licensure as an education administrator;
(ii) Provide one year of induction services, during the award period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they are completing their first year of work as administrators in schools with significant Indian student populations; and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within twelve months of completion.
These priorities are:
An application that includes a letter of support signed by the authorized representative of a local educational agency (LEA) or Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education-funded school or other entity in the applicant's service area that agrees to consider program graduates for qualifying employment.
An application submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian institution of higher education (Indian IHE) that is eligible to participate in the Professional Development program. A consortium application of eligible entities that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an
A consortium application of eligible entities whose lead is non-tribal that—
(i) Meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian IHE; and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive a preference under Competitive Preference Priority 2.
(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.
20 U.S.C. 7442.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
On April 22, 2015, the Department amended regulations including 34 CFR 263.1 through 263.12 (80 FR 22403). We encourage applicants to read closely the amended regulations, particularly as they relate to payback requirements, payback reporting requirements, and grantee post-award requirements. We also have included the text of these regulations in the application package.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
(a) An applicant must be an eligible entity which means—
(1) An institution of higher education, including an Indian IHE;
(2) A State educational agency in consortium with an institution of higher education;
(3) An LEA in consortium with an institution of higher education;
(4) An Indian tribe or Indian organization in consortium with an institution of higher education; or
(5) A Bureau of Indian Education (Bureau)-funded school.
(b) Bureau-funded schools are eligible applicants for—
(1) An in-service training program; and
(2) A pre-service training program when the Bureau-funded school applies in consortium with an institution of higher education that is accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree required by the project.
(c) Eligibility of an applicant requiring a consortium with an institution of higher education, including Indian IHEs, requires that the institution of higher education be accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree required by the project.
An applicant applying as an Indian organization must demonstrate that the entity meets the definition of “Indian organization” in 34 CFR 263.3. “Indian organization” means an organization that—
(1) Is legally established—
(i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State or tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
The term “Indian institution of higher education” means an accredited college or university within the United States cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), any other institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801
2.
3.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.299B.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2. a.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The suggested page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract, table of contents, the resumes, the bibliography, letters of support, or the signed consortium agreement, if applicable.
b.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public by posting them on our Web site, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
A Professional Development program may include, as training costs, assistance to—
(1) Fully finance a student's educational expenses including tuition, books, and required fees; health insurance required by the institution of higher education; stipend; dependent allowance; technology costs; program required travel; and instructional supplies; or
(2) Supplement other financial aid, including Federal funding other than loans, for meeting a student's educational expenses.
The maximum stipend amount is $1,800 per month for full-time students; grantees may also provide participants with a $300 allowance per month per dependent during an academic term. The Department will reduce any stipends in excess of this amount. The terms “stipend,” “full-time student,” and “dependent allowance” are defined in 34 CFR 263.3. Stipends may be paid only to full-time students.
Other costs that a Professional Development program may include, but that must not be included as training costs, include costs for—
(1) Collaborating with prospective employers within the grantees' local service area to create a pool of potentially available qualifying employment opportunities;
(2) In-service training activities such as providing mentorship linking experienced teachers at job placement sites with program participants; and
(3) Assisting participants in identifying and securing qualified employment opportunities in their fields of study following completion of the program.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
Applications for grants under the Indian Education—Professional Development Grants program, CFDA number 84.299B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Indian Education—Professional Development Grants program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.299B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.299B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
(1) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(2) The extent to which employment opportunities exist in the project's service area, as demonstrated through a job market analysis.
(b)
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are ambitious but also attainable and address—
(i) The number of participants expected to be recruited in the project each year;
(ii) The number of participants expected to continue in the project each year;
(iii) The number of participants expected to graduate; and
(iv) The number of participants expected to find qualifying jobs within twelve months of completion.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for recruiting and selecting participants that ensures that program participants are likely to complete the program.
(3) The potential of the proposed project to develop effective strategies for teaching Indian students and improving Indian student achievement, as demonstrated by a plan to share findings gained from the proposed project with parties who could benefit from such findings, such as other institutions of higher education who are training teachers and administrators who will be serving Indian students.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate the needs of potential employers, as identified by a job market analysis, by establishing partnerships and relationships with appropriate entities (
(c)
(1) The likelihood that the proposed project will provide participants with learning experiences that develop needed skills for successful teaching and/or administration in schools with significant Indian populations.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project prepares participants to adapt teaching and/or administrative practices to meet the breadth of Indian student needs.
(3) The extent to which the applicant will provide job placement activities that reflect the findings of a job market analysis and needs of potential employers.
(4) The extent to which the applicant will offer induction services that reflect the latest research on effective delivery of such services.
(5) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(d)
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence, of the project director and the amount of time this individual will spend directly involved in the project.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence, of key project personnel and the amount of time to be spent on the project and direct interactions with participants.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence (as necessary), of project consultants or subcontractors, if any.
(e)
(1) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
(2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
These measures constitute the Department's indicator of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
John Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W207, Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 401-0274 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.358A.
On February 5, 2016, we published in the
The Department contacts local educational agencies that we determine to be newly eligible for SRSA funding, informs them of their eligibility, and instructs them to apply for funding. Due to unanticipated delays in the eligibility determination process, eligible applicants were not able to submit their applications for FY 2016 awards under the SRSA program by the close of the initial application period. Therefore, we are reopening the application period until May 31, 2016, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. All other requirements and conditions
Applicants that did not meet the initial May 2 deadline must submit applications by May 31 to be considered for FY 2016 funding. Applicants that already submitted timely applications that meet all of the requirements of the notice inviting applications do not have to resubmit their applications.
David Cantrell, Rural Programs Group Leader, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E-204, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5990 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Sections 6211-6213 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 18, 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 Elizabeth Witt, 202-260-5585.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On May 10, 2016, we published in the
Brian Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-9085, or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On May 10, 2016, we published in the
Also, on page 28837, in the third column, under
All other requirements and conditions stated in the notice inviting applications, including the deadline for intergovernmental review, remain the same.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division H, Public Law 114-113; and title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 8, 2016; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Thursday, June 9, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99352.
Kristen Holmes, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Tentative Agenda:
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Termoelectrica U.S., LLC (Applicant) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before June 16, 2016.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On March 21, 2016, DOE received an application from the Applicant for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer solely over the TDM Gen-Tie, an authorized international electric transmission facility issued in Presidential Permit PP-235-2 and for a period not to extend beyond the date of termination of the associated Presidential Permit PP-235-2.
In its application, the Applicant states that it does own or control an electric generation or transmission facility at the point where the 230kV generation tie-line crosses the U.S. Mexico border, and does not have a franchised service area. The Applicant's request is limited to the delivery of intermittent and de minimis start-up and station power to the TDM Facility over the TDM-Gen-Tie. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facility to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-418. An additional copy is to be provided to both Daniel A. King, Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, LLC, 488 8th Ave., HQ12S1, San Diego, CA 92101 and Jose A. Lau, Sempra International, LLC, 488 8th Ave., HQ13N1, San Diego, CA 92101.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 8, 2016 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on March 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a Commissioner-led technical conference on June 27, 2016, from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on June 28, 2016, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss issues related to competitive transmission development processes, including, but not limited to, the use of cost containment provisions, the relationship of competitive transmission development to transmission incentives, and other ratemaking issues.
Attached to this Supplemental Notice is a preliminary agenda for the technical conference and a description of key concepts.
Those interested in speaking at the technical conference should notify the Commission by May 17, 2016, by completing the online form at the following Web page:
Interested parties may submit pre-technical conference comments (with a ten page limit) for consideration in Docket No. AD16-18-000 no later than May 31, 2016.
The conference will be open for the public to attend. Information on the technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,
This event will be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with internet access can navigate to the “FERC Calendar” at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) to review its draft report regarding the EPA's proposed methodology for updating its mortality risk valuation estimates for policy analysis.
The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee will conduct public teleconferences on June 16 and June 17, 2016. Each of the teleconferences will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the public teleconferences may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or via email
The EPA's Office of Policy requested advice on proposed improvements to the Agency's methodology for estimating benefits associated with reduced risk of mortality. This methodology takes into account the amounts that individuals are willing to pay for reductions in mortality risk. The resulting values are combined into an estimate known as the value of statistical life (VSL) which is used in regulatory benefit-cost analysis. The EPA also requested that the SAB review options for accounting for changes in the VSL over time as real income grows, known as income elasticity of willingness to pay. The EPA submitted the following documents to the SAB for review: (1)
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
The Commission is requesting approval for an extension (no change in the reporting, recordkeeping and/or third-party disclosure requirements). Prepaid calling card service providers must report quarterly the percentage of interstate, intrastate and international access charges to carriers from which they purchase transport services. Prepaid calling card providers must also file certifications with the Commission quarterly that include the above information and a statement that they are contributing to the federal Universal Service Fund based on all interstate and international revenue, except for revenue from the sale of prepaid calling cards by, to, or pursuant to contract with the Department of Defense (DoD) or a DoD entity.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission use an FRN.
On July 20, 2015, the Commission released the part 1 R&O in which it updated many of its part 1 competitive bidding rules (See Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) of the Commission's Rules and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, and Third Report and Order, FCC 15-80, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015), modified by Erratum, 30 FCC Rcd 8518 (2015) (Part 1 R&O)). Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission: (1) Implemented a new general prohibition on the filing of auction applications by entities controlled by the same individual or set of individuals (but with a limited exception for qualifying rural wireless partnerships); (2) modified the eligibility requirements for small business benefits, and updated the standardized schedule of small business sizes, including the gross revenues thresholds used to determine eligibility; (3) established a new bidding credit for eligible rural service providers; (4) adopted targeted attribution rules to prevent the unjust enrichment of ineligible entities; and (5) adopted rules prohibiting joint bidding arrangements with limited exceptions. The updated Part 1 rules apply to applicants seeking licenses and permits.
Additionally, on June 2, 2014 the Commission released the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O, in which the Commission updated its spectrum screen and established rules for its upcoming auctions of low-band spectrum. Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission stated that it could reserve spectrum in order to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum (In the Matter of Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, FCC 14-63, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 90) 135 (2014) (Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O). See also Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction Scheduled to Begin on March 29, 2016; Technical Formulas for Competitive Bidding, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 11034, Appendix 3 (WTB 2015); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Updated List of Reserve-Eligible Nationwide Service Providers in each PEA for the Broadcast Incentive Auction, Public Notice, AU No. 14-252 (WTB 2016).
The Commission seeks approval for revisions to its previously approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-0798 to permit the collection of the additional information for Commission licenses and permits, pursuant to the rules and information collection requirements adopted by the Commission in the Part 1 R&O and the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O. As part of the collection, the Commission is seeking approval for the information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with 47 CFR 1.2210(j), 1.2112(b)(2)(iii), 1.2112(b)(2)(v), 1.2112(b)(2)(vii), and 1.2112(b)(2)(viii). Also, in certain circumstances, the Commission requires the applicant to provide copies of their agreements and/or submit exhibits.
In addition, the Commission seeks approval for various other, non-substantive editorial/consistency edits and updates to FCC Form 601 that correct inconsistent capitalization of words and other typographical errors, and better align the text on the form with the text in the Commission rules both generally and in connection with recent non-substantive, organizational amendments to the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 601 to revise FCC Form 601 accordingly.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.
In the
• Whether they received the alert message during the designated test;
• whether they retransmitted the alert;
• if they were not able to receive and/or transmit the alert, their `best effort' diagnostic analysis regarding the cause(s) for such failure;
• a description of their station identification and level of designation (PEP, LP-1, etc.);
• the date/time of receipt of the EAN message by all stations; the date/time of PEP station acknowledgement of receipt of the EAN message to FOC;
• the date/time of initiation of actual broadcast of the Presidential message;
• the date/time of receipt of the EAT message by all stations;
• who they were monitoring at the time of the test, and the make and
• model number of the EAS equipment that they utilized.
The
The FCC is submitting this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision of the previously approved information collection that established the mandatory Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS) that EAS Participants must utilize to file identifying and test result data as part of their participation in nationwide EAS testing. Specifically, the
• A description of any actions taken by the EAS Participant (acting individually, in conjunction with other EAS Participants in the geographic area, and/or in consultation with state and local emergency authorities), to make EAS alert content available in languages other than English to its non-English speaking audience(s);
• A description of any future actions planned by the EAS Participant, in consultation with state and local emergency authorities, to provide EAS alert content in languages other than English to its non-English speaking audience(s), along with an explanation for the EAS Participant's decision to plan or not plan such actions; and
• Any other relevant information that the EAS Participant may wish to provide.
In addition, in the event that there is a material change to any of the information that EAS Participants are required to furnish their respective SECCs, EAS Participants must, within 60 days of the occurrence of such material change, submit aa letter to their respective SECCs, copying the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) that describe such change. The SECCs are required to incorporate the information in such letters as amendments to the State EAS Plans on file with the Bureau.
This information will be used by FCC staff to gauge the effectiveness of the EAS's capacity to disseminate in-language EAS emergency alert content to persons who communicate in a language other than English or may have a limited understanding of the English language; to determine whether private and local efforts to disseminate EAS multilingual content might be incorporated into the overall national EAS structure; and to confirm that private and local EAS multilingual operations are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.
The Commission expects that the costs to EAS Participants to comply with these reporting requirements will be minimal, and largely limited to internal administrative charges associated with drafting a brief statement, and submitting that statement, and any other relevant information that the EAS Participant may wish to provide to their SECC for inclusion into the State EAS Plan for the state in which the EAS Participant operates. The Commission further expects that the vast majority of EAS Participants are not engaged in multilingual EAS activities and therefore will need to submit nothing more than a very brief statement to their SECC explaining their decision to plan or not plan future actions to provide EAS alert content in languages other than English to their non-English speaking audience(s). For the presumably small percentage of EAS Participants that actually are engaged in multilingual EAS activities, the filing will merely require that they supply a summary of actions they already have taken in this regard. Accordingly, the FCC estimates that complying with the reporting requirement will take EAS Participants, on average, approximately one hour. The FCC estimates that compiling the EAS Participant summaries of multilingual EAS activities and incorporating such information into the State EAS Plan will take SECCs, on average, approximately 20 hours.
The following information collection contained in part 11 may be impacted by these rule amendments: Section 11.21 requires that state and local EAS plans be reviewed and approved by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security, prior to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.” The draft guidance is intended to assist sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other interested parties on the use of electronic health record (EHR) data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 18, 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.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Cheryl Grandinetti, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2500; Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911; or Irfan Khan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3563, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7100.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.” The draft guidance is intended to assist sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, IRBs, and other interested parties on the use of EHR data in FDA-
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the use of EHR data in clinical investigations. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The draft guidance pertains to sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, IRBs, and other interested parties who use EHR systems as electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations and who send certain information to FDA or others or who keep certain records and make them available to FDA inspectors. The collections of information discussed in the draft guidance are contained in our investigational new drug regulations in part 312 (21 CFR part 312), approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, including §§ 312.58(a) and 312.62(b); investigational device exemption regulations in § 812.140 (21 CFR 812.140) approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; and electronic records; electronic signatures regulations in 21 CFR part 11, approved under OMB control number 0910-0303. The use of EHR systems as a source of data, as described in the draft guidance, would not result in any new costs, including capital costs or operating and maintenance costs, because sponsors and others already have and are experienced with using computer-based equipment and software necessary to be consistent with the draft guidance.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The AIDS Research Loan Repayment Program (AIDS-LRP) is authorized by Section 487A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288-1); the Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds (CR-LRP) is authorized by Section 487E (42 U.S.C. 288-5); the General Research Loan Repayment Program (GR-LRP) is authorized by Section 487C of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288-3); the Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program (LRP-CR) is authorized by Section 487F (42 U.S.C. 288-5a); the Pediatric Research Loan Repayment Program (PR-LRP) is authorized by Section 487F (42 U.S.C. 288-6); the Extramural Clinical Research LRP for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds (ECR-LRP) is authorized by an amendment to Section 487E (42 U.S.C. 288-5); the Contraception and Infertility Research LRP (CIR-LRP) is authorized by Section 487B (42 U.S.C. 288-2); and the Health Disparities Research Loan Repayment Program (HD-LRP) is authorized by Section 485G (42 U.S.C. 287c-33).
The Loan Repayment Programs can repay up to $35,000 per year toward a participant's extant eligible educational loans, directly to financial institutions. The information proposed for collection will be used by the Division of Loan Repayment to determine an applicant's eligibility for participation in the program.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 33,242.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.
Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702.
Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email
Technology description follows.
• Large scale manufacturing of chimeric monoclonal antibodies
• Cost effective means of removing impurities to produce GMP grade chimeric antibodies for regulatory approval.
HHS Ref. No. E-291-2014/0-US-01, corresponding to US Provisional Patent App. No. 62/028,994, filed July 25, 2014, entitled “Method for Purifying Antibodies using PBS”
HHS Ref. No. E-291-2014/0-US-02, corresponding to US Patent App. No. 14/809,211, filed July 25, 2015, entitled “Method for Purifying Antibodies using PBS”
HHS Ref. No. E-291-2014/0-PCT-03, corresponding to International Patent App. No. PCT/US2015/042241, filed July 27, 2015, entitled “Method for Purifying Antibodies”
1. FDA published document:
2. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves first therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma.
3. WO2016015048 METHOD FOR PURIFYING ANTIBODIES
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.
Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702.
Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be
Technology description follows.
• Law enforcement (policing, riot control, crowd control)
• Incapacitating agent for use in hostage situations
• Personal self-defense
• Incapacitating pepper spray with reduced toxicity and enhanced safety.
• May reduce potential agency liability in case of an adverse response of an individual who was sprayed (due to reduced toxicity may not be as life threatening to those suffering from asthma or have hypersensitive airways as standard pepper sprays).
• Mixture can be incorporated into a spray, aerosol, or other dispersions.
HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0.
U.S. Provisional Application 61/340,063 (HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0-US-01) filed March 12, 2010 entitled, “Improved Pepper Spray for Repellency and Incapacitation of People and Animals”.
PCT Application PCT/US2011/028132 (HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0-PCT-02) filed March 11, 2011 entitled, “Agonist/Antagonist Compositions and Methods of Use”.
Canada: Application 2,792, 878 (HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0-CA-03) filed March 11, 2011 entitled, “Agonist/Antagonist Compositions and Methods of Use” (Pending).
U.S. Patent Application 13/634,447 (HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0-US-04) filed September 12, 2012 entitled, “Agonist/Antagonist Compositions and Methods of Use”.
U.S. Patent Application 15/010,830 (HHS Reference No. E-048-2010/0-US-05) filed January 29, 2016 entitled, “Agonist/Antagonist Compositions and Methods of Use” (Pending).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for new data collection activities associated with its Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program.
This information is needed to evaluate implementation of MHFA and Youth Mental Health First Aid in three distinct grant programs: Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (AWARE) State Education Agency (SEA) Cooperative Agreements, which provide funding to support MHFA and YMHFA training to state education agencies; Project AWARE Local Education Agency (LEA) Grants, which provide funding to school districts; and Project AWARE Community (C), a new funding opportunity in fiscal year 2015 that is intended to support MHFA and YMHFA training through a wide range of community organizations.
The MHFA/YMHFA evaluation will address both overarching and program-specific questions related to the implementation and effectiveness of widespread dissemination of mental health literacy programs through these three distinct funding mechanisms and increase SAMHSA's understanding of training, referral benefits, and issues in varied milieu (
This data collection is covered under the requirements of Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993,Title 38, section 527, Evaluation and Data Collection, as well as 38 CFR 1.15, Standards for Program Evaluation.
SAMHSA is requesting clearance for four data collection instruments:
(1) MHFA/YMHFA Pre-Training Survey.
(2) MHFA/YMHFA Post-Training Survey.
(3) MHFA/YMHFA 3-Month and 6-Month Follow-Up Survey.
(4) Qualitative protocol for interviews with site coordinators.
The table below reflects the annualized hourly burden.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland, 20857
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of sales of mortgage loans.
This notice announces HUD's intention to competitively sell certain unsubsidized single family mortgage loans, in a sealed bid sale offering called ADPLS, without Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance. This notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid. This is the first ADPLS offering, and the sale will be held on May 18, 2016.
For this sale action, the Bidder's Information Package (BIP) was made available to qualified bidders on April 11, 2016. Bids for the ADPLS sale will be accepted on the Bid Date of May 18, 2016 (Bid Date). HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or after May 18, 2016 (the Award Date).
To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents are available via the HUD Web site at:
John Lucey, Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call 202-708-4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.
HUD announces its intention to sell in ADPLS certain unsubsidized non-performing mortgage loans (Mortgage Loans) secured by single family properties located throughout the United States. A listing of the Mortgage Loans is included in the due diligence materials made available to qualified bidders. The Mortgage Loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the Mortgage Loans.
The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in ADPLS. The BIP also includes a standardized non-negotiable Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement (CAA Agreement). Qualified bidders will be required to submit a deposit with their bid. Deposits are calculated based upon each qualified bidder's aggregate bid price.
HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bid, in terms of the best value to HUD, in its sole and absolute discretion. If a qualified bidder is successful, the qualified bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders. For ADPLS, settlements are expected to take place on or about June 27, 2016, and July 29th, 2016.
This notice provides some of the basic terms of sale. The CAA Agreement, which is included in the BIP, provides comprehensive contractual terms and conditions. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the CAA Agreement are not subject to negotiation.
The BIP describes how qualified bidders may access the due diligence materials remotely via a high-speed Internet connection.
HUD reserves the right to remove Mortgage Loans from ADPLS at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, and include any Mortgage Loans in a later sale. Deliveries of Mortgage Loans will occur in at least two settlements and the number of Mortgage Loans delivered will vary depending upon the number of Mortgage Loans the Participating Servicers have submitted for the payment of an FHA insurance claim. The Participating Servicers will not be able to submit claims on loans that are not included in the Mortgage Loan Portfolio set forth in the BIP.
There can be no assurance that any Participating Servicer will deliver a minimum number of Mortgage Loans to HUD or that a minimum number of Mortgage Loans will be delivered to the Purchaser.
The ADPLS Mortgage Loans are assigned to HUD pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(A) of the National Housing Act as amended under Title VI of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999. The sale of the Mortgage Loans is pursuant to section 204(g) of the National Housing Act.
HUD selected an open competitive whole-loan sale as the method to sell the Mortgage Loans for this specific sale transaction. For ADPLS, HUD has determined that this method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these Mortgage Loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the Mortgage Loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans.
In order to bid in ADPLS as a qualified bidder, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. In the Qualification Statement, the prospective bidder must provide certain representations and warranties regarding (i) a prospective bidder, (ii) a prospective bidder's board of directors, (iii) a prospective bidder's direct parent, (iii) a prospective bidder's subsidiaries, and (iv) any related entity with which the prospective bidder shares a common officer, director, subcontractor or sub-contractor who has access to Confidential Information as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement or is involved in the formation of a bid transaction (“Related Entities”), and (v) a prospective bidder's repurchase lenders. The prospective bidder is ineligible to bid on any of the Mortgage Loans included in ADPLS if the prospective bidder, its Related Entities or its repurchase lenders, is any of the following, unless other exceptions apply as provided for the in Qualification Statement.
1. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to the Governmentwide Suspension and Debarment regulations at Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 180 and 2424;
2. An individual or entity that is currently suspended, debarred or otherwise restricted by any department or agency of the federal government or of a state government from doing business with such department or agency;
3. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing mortgage related business, including having a business license suspended, surrendered or revoked, by any federal, state or local government agency, division or department;
4. An entity that has had its right to act as a Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) issuer terminated and its interest in mortgages backing Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities extinguished by Ginnie Mae;
5. An individual or entity that is in violation of its neighborhood stabilizing outcome obligations or post-sale reporting requirements under a Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement executed for a past sale;
6. An employee of HUD's Office of Housing, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household with household to be inclusive of the employee's father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandparent, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, first cousin, the spouse of any of the foregoing, and the employee's spouse;
7. A contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any
8. An individual or entity that knowingly acquired or will acquire prior to the sale date material non-public information, other than that information which is made available to Bidder by HUD pursuant to the terms of this Qualification Statement, about Mortgage Loans offered in the sale;
9. An individual or entity that knowingly uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under 1 through 11 to assist in preparing any of its bids on the Mortgage Loans;
10. An individual or entity which knowingly employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD's Office of Housing (other than in such employee's official capacity); or
11. A Participating Servicer that contributed Mortgage Loans to a pool on which the Bidder is placing a bid.
The Qualification Statement has additional representations and warranties which the prospective bidder must make, including but not limited to the representation and warranty that the prospective bidder or its Related Entities are not and will not knowingly use the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity that is, any of the following (and to the extent that any such individual or entity would prevent Bidder from making the following representations, such individual or entity has been removed from participation in all activities related to this sale and has no ability to influence or control individuals involved in formation of a bid for this sale):
(1) An entity or individual is ineligible to bid on any included Mortgage Loan or on the pool containing such Mortgage Loan because it is an entity or individual that:
(a) Serviced or held any Mortgage Loan at any time during the two-year period prior to the bid, or
(b) Is any principal of any entity or individual described in the preceding sentence;
(c) Any employee or subcontractor of such entity or individual during that two-year period; or
(d) Any entity or individual that employs or uses the services of any other entity or individual described in this paragraph in preparing its bid on such Mortgage Loan.
HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding ADPLS, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful qualified bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or individual loan, upon the closing of the sale of all the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to ADPLS, HUD will disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated thereunder.
This notice applies to ADPLS and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold two meetings in Nevada, in 2016. The meetings are open to the public.
June 2 and 3 at the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada District. A meeting will be held on Thursday, June 2, at the Winnemucca BLM District Office (5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.) in Winnemucca, Nevada. A field trip will be held on Friday, June 3 within the Winnemucca BLM District. The second meeting will be held August 11 and 12, at the BLM Carson City, Nevada District. A meeting will be held on Thursday, August 11, at the Carson City BLM District Office (5665 Morgan Mill Road) in Carson City, Nevada. A field trip will be held on Friday, August 12 within the Carson City BLM District. Approximate meeting times are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, meetings could end earlier if discussions and presentations conclude before 4 p.m. The meetings will include a public comment period at approximately 8:30 a.m. and approximately 4:00 p.m.
Lisa Ross, Public Affairs Specialist, Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone: (775) 885-6107, email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at the meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• June 2 & 3—landscape vegetative management, rangeland health assessments, Fire Invasive Assessment Tool (FIAT), sage grouse, drought, and fire restoration. Managers' reports of district office activities will be distributed at each meeting.
• August 11 & 12—Sage Grouse, Wild Horse & Burro, Land Health projects, Managers' report of district office activities will be distributed at each meeting.
The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.
Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Lisa Ross no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
List of restricted joint bidders.
Pursuant to the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 556.511, the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is publishing a List of Restricted Joint Bidders. Each entity within one of the following groups is restricted from bidding with any entity in any of the other following groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held during the bidding period May 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. This List of Restricted Joint Bidders will cover the period May 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016, and replace the prior list published on November 2, 2015, which covered the period of November 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on February 29, 2016, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to the asserted patent claims in this investigation. The Commission has also determined to deny motions for intervention and to reopen the record. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.45 (19 CFR 210.45), Respondents' request for a Commission hearing has been granted. A notice providing the scope and details of the hearing will be forthcoming.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 30, 2015, based on a complaint filed by BASF Corporation of Florham Park, New Jersey and UChicago Argonne LLC of Lemont, Illinois (collectively, “Complainants”). 80 FR 16696 (Mar. 30, 2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 lithium metal oxide cathode materials, lithium-ion batteries for power tool products containing same, and power tool products with lithium-ion batteries containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,677,082 (“the '082 patent”) and claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,680,143 (“the '143 patent”).
On November 5, 2015, the ALJ granted a joint motion by Complainants and Makita to terminate the investigation as to Makita based upon settlement.
On December 1, 2015, the ALJ granted an unopposed motion by Complainants to terminate the investigation as to claim 8 of the '082 patent.
On February 29, 2016, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by Umicore in connection with claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 of the '082 patent and claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17 of the '143 patent. Specifically, the ID found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction,
On March 14, 2016, Umicore filed a petition for review of the ID. Also on March 14, 2016, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) petitioned for review of the ID's finding that a laches defense fails as a matter of law in section 337 investigations. Further on March 14, 2016, Complainants filed a contingent petition for review of the ID. That same day, Umicore filed a motion under Commission Rules 210.15(a)(2) and 210.38(a) (19 CFR 210.15(a)(2) and 210.38(a)), for the Commission to reopen the record in this investigation to admit a paper published on October 29, 2015, and a press release issued that day (collectively, “documents”). On March 22, 2016, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review. On March 24, 2016, Complainants and the IA filed oppositions to Umicore's motion to reopen the record. On April 5, 2016, Umicore moved for leave to file a reply. The Commission has determined to grant Umicore's motion for leave to file a reply.
On April 8, 2016, 3M Corporation (“3M”) filed a motion to intervene under Commission Rule 210.19. 3M requests that the Commission grant it “with full participation rights in this Investigation in order to protect its significant interests in the accused materials.”
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's contributory and induced infringement findings; (2) the ID's domestic industry findings under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C); and (3) the ID's findings on laches.
The Commission has determined to deny Umicore's motion to reopen the record to admit the documents. The Commission notes that the documents that Umicore seeks to introduce into evidence were available as of October 29, 2015, the last day of the hearing before the ALJ. Thus, Umicore could not have presented them prior to the hearing. Nothing, however, prevented Umicore from filing a timely motion under Commission Rule 210.42(g) requesting the ALJ to reopen the record and consider the documents prior to issuance of the final ID. The Commission notes that the final ID did not issue until February 29, 2016, four months after the documents were published. Yet, Umicore made no attempt to request the ALJ to consider the documents in the final ID. Thus, the Commission has determined to deny Umicore's motion to reopen the record at this late stage.
The Commission has determined to deny 3M's motion to intervene. The Commission notes that 3M filed a public interest statement on April 8, 2016, making substantially the same arguments it makes in its motion to intervene. The Commission will consider 3M's comments in considering remedy, bonding and the public interest this investigation if a violation of section 337 is found.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in responses to the following questions:
1. Please discuss whether laches should be an available defense in a section 337 investigation. In your response, please address how
2. Please discuss whether a good faith belief of non-infringement negates a contributory infringement finding, where the accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses. In your response, please address the impact of the following cases:
3. Please point to evidence (or lack of evidence) showing that Umicore had a good faith belief of non-infringement, including evidence showing that Umicore relied upon that belief.
4. Please discuss in detail the extent to which an exclusion order would affect research and development efforts with respect to lithium ion batteries by universities and private companies.
5. Please provide a detailed discussion of the record evidence as to whether Umicore's NMC material is uniquely suited for specific applications in energy saving technology, cutting-edge research and development, including identifying those specific areas and volumes involved and whether any other material can be used in such applications.
6. Please discuss whether each of the research companies and universities currently using Umicore NMC material (
7. Please discuss whether NMC materials produced by other suppliers have lower performance characteristics and consistency.
8. Please discuss how the Umicore NMC material relates to 3M's research and whether other suppliers provide comparable material that 3M can use in its research.
9. Please identify the suppliers of NMC to the U.S. market and the percentage of the market held by each.
Pursuant to Commission rule 210.45 (19 CFR 210.45), Umicore's request for a Commission hearing has been granted. A notice providing the scope and details of the hearing will be forthcoming.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight 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 investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-951”) 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.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's Web site, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action to enjoin the proposed combination of Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”), Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”), and Advance/Newhouse Partnership's (“Advance/Newhouse”) subsidiary, Bright House Networks, LLC (“BHN”) (collectively referred to herein as “New Charter”), which would create the second-largest cable company and the third-largest multi-channel video distributor in the United States.
1. Online video programming distributors (“OVDs”) are beginning to revolutionize the way Americans receive and experience video content. With access to an adequate Internet connection, consumers can now choose among a number of OVDs to access collections of movies and television shows, including original content, at any time and on a device of their choosing. The early OVDs, such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, focused on offering on-demand video to their customers and have developed video services that have already proven popular. Several newer OVDs, including DISH Network's Sling TV and Sony's Playstation Vue, have introduced services that offer live television channels in addition to on-demand content. And several television networks, including CBS, HBO, and Showtime, have launched OVD services to distribute their own programming over the Internet directly to subscribers. Continued growth of OVDs promises to deliver more competitive choices and a greater ability for consumers to customize their consumption of video content to their individual viewing preferences and budgets.
2. The emergence of OVDs threatens to upend the competitive landscape. For years, incumbent cable companies such as Comcast, TWC, and Charter have served the majority of American video households. Although these companies now face competition from the two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DirecTV and DISH Network, and, in some areas, from telephone companies (“telcos”) like AT&T and Verizon that also offer video services, all of these distributors—collectively referred to as multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”)—offer fairly similar products and pricing. Most notably, all of these MVPDs sell content to consumers primarily through large and costly video bundles that include hundreds of channels of programming that many customers neither desire nor watch.
3. In order for an OVD to successfully compete with the traditional MVPDs, it needs both the ability to reach consumers over the Internet and the ability to obtain programming from content providers that consumers will want to watch. Importantly, incumbent cable companies often can exert significant influence over one or both of these essential ingredients to an OVD's success, because they provide broadband connectivity that OVDs need to reach consumers and are also a critical distribution channel for the same video programmers that supply OVDs with video content. To the extent a transaction, such as the one at issue here, enhances an MVPD's ability or incentive to restrain OVDs' access to either of these critical inputs, and thus to prevent OVDs from becoming a meaningful new competitive option, consumers lose.
4. MVPDs have responded to the emergence of OVDs in various ways. Many MVPDs have sought to keep their customers from migrating some or all of their viewing to OVDs by taking steps to make their services more attractive to consumers, for example, by allowing their subscribers to receive programming over the Internet through Web sites or apps and providing expanded video-on-demand offerings. But some MVPDs have sought to restrain nascent OVD competition directly by exercising their leverage over video programmers to restrict the programmers' ability to license content to OVDs. To this end, some MVPDs have sought so-called Alternative Distribution Means (“ADM”) clauses in their programming contracts that prohibit programmers from distributing content online, or have placed significant restrictions on online distribution. No MVPD has sought and obtained these restrictive ADMs as frequently, or as successfully, as TWC.
5. The combination of TWC with Charter and BHN will result in a larger MVPD with a greater ability and incentive to secure restrictions on programmers that limit or foreclose OVD access to important content. The Defendants, along with other MVPDs and OVDs, compete with one another as buyers of video content and serve as alternative distribution channels for national video programmers to build viewership scale. Since New Charter would have nearly 60 percent more subscribers than TWC standing alone, the merger will make New Charter a more vital distribution channel for these video programmers than each of the Defendants individually. Hence, as a result of the merger, New Charter will have greater bargaining leverage to insist that video programmers limit their distribution to OVDs.
6. In addition, with its much larger subscriber base, New Charter would gain significant additional benefits from impeding OVD competition. Today, Charter, TWC, and BHN each only act to protect its own MVPD profits. After the merger, however, New Charter would act to protect the much larger combined video revenues of all three Defendants. That is, while prior to the merger TWC has an incentive to obtain restrictive contract clauses to protect its $10.4 billion in video revenues, New Charter would have a much larger incentive to protect the Defendants' over $16 billion in aggregated video revenues.
7. With more to gain from imposing ADMs and other contractual restrictions and with greater bargaining leverage with programmers to insist on such provisions, New Charter will be well-positioned to restrain continued OVD growth by limiting or foreclosing OVD access to the video content that is vital to their competitiveness. Accordingly, the proposed combination of Charter, TWC, and BHN is likely to substantially lessen competition in the provision of video programming distribution in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and should be enjoined.
8. The United States brings this action under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain Charter, TWC, and BHN from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
9. Defendants Charter, TWC, and BHN all provide video distribution services to programmers in the flow of interstate commerce, distributing video programming to millions of consumers in numerous states within the United States. Accordingly, Defendants' activities substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and these Defendants pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
10. Defendants have consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the District of Columbia for the purposes of this action.
11. Defendant Charter is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in
12. Defendant TWC is a New York corporation with headquarters in New York, New York. With over 10.8 million video subscribers across 30 states, TWC is the second-largest cable company in the United States (behind only Comcast), and the fourth-largest MVPD in the country. In 2014, TWC reported total revenues of approximately $22.8 billion. Around 45% of those revenues, or about $10.4 billion, were derived from TWC's video business.
13. Defendant Advance/Newhouse is a New York partnership with headquarters in East Syracuse, New York, and the sole owner of Defendant BHN, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in East Syracuse, New York. BHN is the sixth-largest cable company in the United States and the ninth-largest MVPD. BHN owns cable systems serving around 2 million video customers across six states. In 2014, BHN generated total revenues of around $3.7 billion, approximately $1.5 billion of which were derived from its video business.
14. On May 23, 2015, Charter, TWC, and Advance/Newhouse entered into a series of agreements that would combine Charter, TWC, and BHN into a single company, New Charter. Pursuant to these agreements, (1) Charter and TWC would merge in a transaction valued at over $78 billion; and (2) Charter would acquire BHN from Advance/Newhouse in a transaction valued at $10.4 billion. The combined entity would have nearly 17.4 million video subscribers across 41 states, making it the second-largest cable company and third-largest MVPD, accounting for nearly 18% of all MVPD subscribers in the United States.
15. There are two distinct levels to the video programming distribution industry. At the “upstream” level, video programmers license their content to video programming distributors—both OVDs and traditional MVPDs including Charter, TWC, and BHN. At the “downstream” level, the video programming distributors then sell subscriptions to various packages of that content and deliver the content to residential customers.
16. Video programmers produce themselves, or acquire from other copyright holders, a collection of professional, full-length programs and movies. These video programmers then typically aggregate this content into branded networks (
17. In order to acquire the rights to distribute each network, video programming distributors pay the video programmer a license fee. Generally, MVPDs and OVDs pay the video programmer a monthly per-subscriber fee. These license fees are an important revenue stream for video programmers. Most of the remainder of their revenues comes from fees for advertisements placed on their networks.
18. Video programmers rely on video programming distributors to reach consumers. Unless a video programmer obtains carriage in the packages of video programming distributors that reach a sufficient number of consumers, the programmers will be unable to earn enough revenue in licensing or to attract enough advertising revenue to generate a return on their investments in content. For this reason, video programmers prefer to have as many video programming distributors as possible carry their networks, and particularly seek out the largest MVPDs that reach the most customers. If the programmer is unable to agree on acceptable terms with a particular distributor, the programmer's content will not be available to that distributor's customers. This potential consequence gives the largest MVPDs significant bargaining leverage in their negotiations with programmers.
19. The timely distribution of professional, full-length video programming to residential customers (“video programming distribution”) constitutes a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. Both
20. Video programming distribution is characterized by the aggregation and delivery of professionally produced content. This content includes scripted and unscripted television shows, live programming, sports, news, and movies licensed from a mixture of broadcast and cable networks, as well as from movie studios. Video programming can be viewed immediately by consumers, whether on demand or as scheduled.
21. Consumers purchase video programming distribution services from among those distributors that can offer such services directly to their home. The DBS operators, DirecTV and DISH, can reach almost any customer in the continental United States who has an unobstructed line of sight to their satellites. OVDs are available to any consumer with Internet service sufficient to deliver video of an acceptable quality. In contrast, wireline-based distributors such as cable companies and telcos generally must obtain a franchise from local, municipal, or state authorities in order to construct and operate a wireline network in a specific area, and then build lines to homes in that area. A consumer cannot purchase video programming distribution services from a wireline distributor operating outside its franchise area because the distributor does not have the facilities to reach the consumer's home. Thus, although the set of video programming distributors able to offer service to individual consumers' residences is generally the same within each local community, the set can differ from one local community to another.
22. Each local community whose residents face the same competitive choices in video programming distribution comprises a local geographic market and section of the country under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. A hypothetical monopolist of video programming distribution in any of these geographic areas could profitably raise prices by a small but significant, non-transitory amount.
23. The specific geographic markets relevant to this action are the numerous local markets throughout the United States shown in the map below where either Charter, TWC, or BHN is the incumbent cable operator.
24. The incumbent cable companies typically have the highest share of subscribers within their respective service areas, often above 50 percent. The DBS providers, DirecTV and DISH, account for approximately one-third of the video programming distribution subscribers nationwide, although their shares vary by local market. The telcos, AT&T and Verizon, account for over 10 percent of video programming distribution nationwide and have successfully achieved penetration of up to 40 percent in some areas, but their video services remain limited to certain local markets and are unavailable to most American homes. In a handful of areas, other providers called “overbuilders” have constructed an additional wireline network to residential consumers, offering another competitive option for video and broadband service. But these overbuilders, including companies like RCN and Google Fiber, are available in very few communities, serving less than two percent of U.S. television households nationwide.
25. Although OVDs have acquired a significant number of customers over the last several years, they account for only five percent of total video programming distribution revenues. Nevertheless, established distributors such as Charter, TWC, and BHN view OVDs as a growing competitive threat and have taken steps to respond to OVD entry.
26. Charter, TWC, and BHN compete with DBS, overbuilder, and telco providers by upgrading their existing services, offering promotions and other price discounts, and introducing new product offerings. Consumers benefit from this competition by receiving better quality services, lower prices, and more programming choices. Competition between the incumbent cable companies and these alternative video providers has also fostered innovation, including the development of digital transmission, HD, and 4K programming, and the introduction of DVRs, video-on-demand, and ways to view content on other devices or away from home.
27. The continued development and expansion of OVDs could unlock additional competitive benefits. Today, many consumers purchase OVD services as a supplement to a traditional MVPD subscription. But in light of expanding OVD options, some consumers are switching from larger, more expensive MVPD bundles to slimmer and cheaper bundles. A small number of consumers are even “cutting the cord”—cancelling their MVPD subscription altogether and relying solely on one or more OVDs to receive content. And many younger consumers are emerging as “cord nevers” that do not seek out an MVPD subscription in the first place. Large cable companies such as Charter and TWC, which rely on their video businesses to deliver significant profit margins, have observed these developments with growing concern. In numerous internal documents, Defendants show a keen awareness of the competitive threat that OVDs pose. In fact, a TWC board presentation from February 2014 illustrated the threat posed by such emerging online competitors as a meteor speeding toward earth:
28. Because of the threat OVDs pose to their video business, some MVPDs have an incentive to engage in tactics that would diminish OVDs' ability to compete. TWC, in particular, has recognized that it can use its contracts with video programmers to try and foreclose OVD competitors from access to valuable content. TWC has been the most aggressive MVPD in the industry in seeking and obtaining restrictive contract provisions in its agreements with programmers that limit the programmer's ability to license programming to OVDs. Specifically, TWC has used the leverage that comes from its status as an important distribution channel for many video programmers to secure ADM provisions that either prevent the programmer from distributing its content online, or place certain restrictions on such online distribution. For example, some of TWC's ADMs prohibit any online distribution for a certain period of time; others prevent the programmers from distributing their content through OVDs that do not meet specific criteria that can be difficult for OVDs to satisfy (
29. Although they offer service to residential customers in different local areas, each of the Defendants serves as an alternative distribution channel for nationwide video programmers to deliver their content to consumers and to build national viewership scale. Video programmers rely on traditional MVPDs to provide licensing fees and to build a large viewership base that is attractive to advertisers. Post-merger, New Charter will become one of the largest MVPDs in the country and will serve as a critical distributor for video programmers, offering access to over 17 million customers spread across 41 states. As a result, New Charter will have more leverage to demand that video programmers agree to forego or limit the licensing of programming to OVDs.
30. In addition, New Charter will have greater incentive to engage in conduct designed to make OVDs less competitive because the merged firm will be significantly larger than any of the Defendants individually. Because New Charter will have far more subscribers, it will also stand to lose more profits as OVDs continue to take business from traditional video distributors. Today,
31. Restrictions imposed on video programmers by New Charter will likely make it more difficult for OVDs to obtain important content from programmers in the future. In order to comply with New Charter's restrictions, video programmers may have to effectively cease providing certain programming to an OVD altogether, or may be obligated to impose burdensome conditions on an OVD (such as the requirement to include a minimum number of programming networks in the service). Such actions could negatively affect OVDs' business models and undermine their ability to provide robust video offerings that compete with the offerings of traditional MVPDs. By limiting OVDs' access to content that is important to their customers, the competitiveness of OVDs will likely be diminished and consumers will likely receive lower-quality services and fewer choices.
32. Entry or expansion of traditional video programming distributors will not be timely, likely, or sufficient to reverse the competitive harm that would likely result from the proposed merger of Charter, TWC, and BHN. Entry and expansion in the traditional video programming distribution business is difficult and time-consuming because it requires an enormous upfront investment to create distribution infrastructure such as building out wireline facilities or launching satellites. Entry or expansion into a new geographic area also typically requires approval from one or more regulatory bodies.
33. OVDs are less likely to enter or expand to develop into significant competitors if denied access to popular content as a result of the proposed transaction.
34. The United States hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 33.
35. Defendants' proposed combination of Charter, TWC, and BHN would likely substantially lessen competition in the numerous geographic markets for video programming distribution identified above in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
36. Unless enjoined, the proposed transactions between Charter, TWC, and Advance/Newhouse would likely have the following anticompetitive effects, among others:
a. competition in the development, provision, and sale of video programming distribution services in each of the relevant geographic markets will likely be substantially lessened;
b. prices for video programming distribution services will likely increase to levels above those that would prevail absent the proposed transactions; and
c. innovation and quality of video programming distribution services will likely decrease to levels below those that would prevail absent the proposed transactions.
37. Plaintiff United States requests that this Court:
a. adjudge and decree that the proposed transactions violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
b. preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from carrying out the proposed transactions, or from entering into or carrying out any other agreement, understanding, or plan that would have the effect of bringing the video distribution businesses of Charter, TWC, and BHN under common ownership or control;
c. award the United States its costs in this action; and
d. award the United States such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
The United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On May 23, 2015, Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”) and Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“TWC”), two of the largest cable companies in the United States, agreed to merge in a deal valued at over $78 billion. In addition, Charter and Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns Bright House Networks, LLC (“BHN”), announced that Charter would acquire BHN for $10.4 billion, conditional on the sale of TWC to Charter. As a result of these transactions, the combined company, referred to as “New Charter,” will become one of the largest providers of pay television service in the United States.
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on April 25, 2016, seeking to enjoin the proposed transactions because their likely effect would be to lessen competition substantially in numerous local markets for the timely distribution of professional, full-length video programming to residential customers (“video programming distribution”) throughout the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the proposed merger would increase the ability and incentive of New Charter to use its leverage with video programmers to limit the access of online video distributors (“OVDs”) to important content. These OVDs are increasingly offering meaningful competition to cable companies like Charter, and the loss of competition caused by the proposed merger likely would result in lower-quality services, fewer choices, and higher prices for consumers, as well
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, the Defendants will be prohibited from using their bargaining leverage with video programmers to inhibit the flow of video content to OVDs. The proposed Final Judgment will provide a prompt, certain, and effective remedy for consumers by preventing New Charter from using its leverage over programmers to harm competition. The United States and the Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, and to punish and remedy violations thereof.
The proposed merger was also subject to review and approval by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).
Charter is the third-largest cable company in the United States, and the sixth-largest multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) overall. Charter owns cable systems across 28 states, serving approximately 4.8 million residential broadband customers and 4.2 million residential video customers. Charter reported total revenues of around $9.1 billion in 2014, approximately $4.4 billion of which were derived from Charter's video business.
TWC is the second-largest cable company in the United States (behind only Comcast Corp.), and the fourth-largest MVPD in the country. TWC's cable systems serve approximately 11.7 million residential broadband and 10.8 million residential video customers in 30 states. TWC reported total revenues of approximately $22.8 billion in 2014, around $10.4 billion of which were derived from TWC's video business.
BHN is the sixth-largest incumbent cable company in the United States and the ninth-largest MVPD overall. It owns cable systems serving approximately 2 million video customers across six states, the majority of whom are located in the Orlando and Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida areas. BHN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Advance/Newhouse Partnership. Although the Advance/Newhouse Partnership retains the authority to manage BHN, it has entered into agreements by which TWC performs certain functions for BHN, including the procurement of cable programming. In 2014, BHN generated total revenues of around $3.7 billion, approximately $1.5 billion of which were derived from its video business.
The proposed transactions combining Charter, TWC, and BHN into New Charter, as initially agreed to by the Defendants on May 23, 2015, would lessen competition substantially in numerous local markets for video programming distribution. These transactions are the subject of the Complaint and proposed Final Judgment filed by the United States on April 25, 2016.
The video programming distribution industry operates at two distinct levels. At the “upstream” level, video programmers license their content to video programming distributors—both OVDs and traditional MVPDs including Charter, TWC, and BHN. At the “downstream” level, the video programming distributors then sell subscriptions to various packages of that content and deliver the content to residential customers.
Video programmers produce themselves, or acquire from other copyright holders, a collection of professional, full-length programs and movies. These video programmers then typically aggregate this content into branded networks (
In order to acquire the rights to distribute each network, video programming distributors pay the video programmer a license fee, generally on a per-subscriber basis. These license fees are an important revenue stream for video programmers. Most of the remainder of their revenues comes from fees for advertisements placed on their networks.
Video programmers rely on video programming distributors—both MVPDs and OVDs—to reach consumers. Unless a video programmer obtains carriage in the packages of video programming distributors that reach a sufficient number of consumers, the programmers will be unable to earn enough revenue in licensing or to attract enough advertising revenue to generate a return on their investments in content. For this reason, video programmers prefer to have as many video programming distributors as possible carry their networks, and particularly seek out the largest MVPDs that reach the most customers. If the programmer is unable to agree on acceptable terms with a particular distributor, the programmer's content will not be available to that distributor's customers. This potential consequence gives the largest MVPDs significant bargaining leverage in their negotiations with programmers.
Traditional video programming distributors include incumbent cable companies such as Charter and TWC; direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers such as DirecTV and DISH Network; telephone companies (“telcos”) that offer video services such as Verizon and AT&T; and overbuilders such as Google Fiber and RCN.
OVDs are relatively recent entrants into the video programming distribution market. They deliver a variety of live and/or on-demand video programming over the Internet, whether streamed to Internet-connected televisions or other devices, or downloaded for later viewing. OVDs today include services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant Video, and Sling TV, although, as discussed in more detail below, their content selection and business models vary greatly. Unlike MVPDs, OVDs do not own distribution facilities and are dependent upon broadband Internet access service providers, including incumbent cable companies such as Charter and TWC, for the delivery of their content to viewers.
The Complaint alleges that video programming distribution constitutes a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The market for video programming distribution includes both traditional MVPDs and their newer OVD rivals.
Consumers purchase video programming distribution services from among those distributors that can offer such services directly to their home. The DBS operators, DirecTV and DISH, can reach almost any customer in the continental United States who has an unobstructed line of sight to their satellites. OVDs are available to any consumer with an Internet service sufficient to deliver video of an acceptable quality. In contrast, wireline-based distributors such as cable companies and telcos generally must obtain a franchise from local, municipal, or state authorities in order to construct and operate a wireline network in a specific area, and then build lines to homes in that area. A consumer cannot purchase video programming distribution services from a wireline distributor operating outside its franchise area because the distributor does not have the facilities to reach the consumer's home. Thus, although the set of video programming distributors able to offer service to individual consumers' residences is generally the same within each local community, the set can differ from one local community to another.
According to the Complaint, each local community whose residents face the same competitive choices in video programming distribution comprises a geographic market and section of the country under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The geographic markets relevant to this action are the numerous local markets throughout the United States where either Charter, TWC, or BHN is the incumbent cable operator—an area encompassing 48 million U.S. television households located across 41 states. However, because OVDs typically offer services nationwide, the Complaint alleges that anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger likely extend to the entire United States.
The incumbent cable companies are often the largest video distribution provider in their respective local territories; the Defendants' market shares, for example, exceed 50 percent in many local markets in which they operate. The DBS providers, DirecTV and DISH Network, account for an average of about one third of video programming subscribers combined in any given local market. The telcos, including AT&T and Verizon, have market shares as high as 40 percent in the communities they have entered, but they are only available in limited areas and account for about 10 percent of video programming customers nationwide. Overbuilders such as Google Fiber can also have moderately high shares in particular local markets, but their services are only available in a small number of areas and they account for fewer than two percent of nationwide video programming distribution subscribers.
Although OVDs have acquired a significant number of customers over the last several years, most of these customers also purchase traditional MVPD subscriptions. As a result, OVDs currently have a small share of video programming distribution market revenues—likely around 5%.
OVDs have developed a number of different business models for delivering content to consumers. Several OVDs, including Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant Video, and Hulu Plus, offer “subscription video on demand” (“SVOD”) services where consumers typically obtain access to a wide library of movies, past-season television shows, and original content for a subscription fee.
In contrast to these SVOD providers, a few OVDs have recently begun
As OVDs have developed new business models and obtained a wider array of attractive video content, they have started to become closer substitutes for traditional MVPD services. Although many consumers treat OVD services as a complement to traditional MVPD service—for example, purchasing services from an SVOD like Netflix to access past season content and Netflix's original content but subscribing to an MVPD for live and current-season content—some are already using OVDs as substitutes for at least a portion of their video consumption. These consumers buy smaller content packages from traditional MVPDs, decline to take certain premium channels, or purchase fewer VOD offerings, and instead substitute content from OVDs, a practice known as “cord-shaving.” In addition, a small, but growing number of MVPD customers are “cutting the cable cord” completely, using one or more OVDs as a replacement for their MVPD service. Finally, some younger consumers are emerging as “cord nevers” who do not seek out an MVPD subscription in the first place.
Absent interference from the established MVPDs, OVDs are likely to continue to grow, and to become stronger competitors to MVPDs. Moreover, to the extent that OVDs continue to develop services that more closely resemble those offered by traditional MVPDs, such as the live programming offered by vMVPDs or the current season content offered by certain SVODs, traditional MVPDs will likely face greater substitution to OVD services. To this end, the Defendants' internal documents show that they have typically been comparatively less concerned about competition from certain SVOD providers, like Netflix, that do not offer live or current-season programming, and more concerned by the threat posed by vMVPDs like Sling TV and SVODs like HBO NOW that offer current season content.
The Defendants and many other MVPDs recognize the threat that the growth of OVDs pose to their video distribution businesses. Numerous internal documents reflect the Defendants' assessment that OVDs are growing quickly and pose a competitive threat to traditional forms of video programming distribution. MVPDs have responded to this growth in various ways. To keep their customers from migrating some or all of their viewing to OVDs, many MVPDs, including the Defendants, have introduced new and less expensive packages with smaller numbers of channels, increased the amount of content available on an on-demand basis, and made content available to subscribers on devices other than traditional cable set-top boxes. At the same time, however, some MVPDs have sought to restrain nascent OVD competition directly by exercising their leverage over video programmers to restrict video programmers' ability to license content to OVDs. As alleged in the Complaint, and explained in more detail below, TWC has been an industry leader in seeking such restrictions, and the formation of New Charter will create an entity with an increased ability and incentive to do so.
Although Defendants do not compete to provide video distribution services to consumers in the same local geographic markets, the Clayton Act is also concerned with mergers that threaten to reduce the number or quality of choices available to consumers by increasing the merging parties' incentive or ability to engage in conduct that would foreclose competition.
As alleged in the Complaint, New Charter will be significantly larger than each of the Defendants individually, and thus will have a greater incentive and ability to use its bargaining power with video programmers to protect its market power in the local markets for video programming distribution. Specifically, following the merger, New Charter will be the one of the largest MVPDs in the country, with over 17 million subscribers in 41 states, and will therefore be a critical distribution channel for video programmers. The Complaint alleges that this greater scale will give New Charter more leverage to demand that programmers agree to limit their distribution to OVDs, enabling the merged firm to increase barriers to entry for OVDs or otherwise make OVDs less competitive.
The Complaint also alleges that New Charter will have increased incentive to engage in such behavior because it will stand to lose substantially more profits than Charter, TWC, and BHN individually if OVDs take business from traditional MVPDs, and it will internalize more of the benefits of harming OVDs. The Defendants' specific means for foreclosing OVDs—ADM clauses and other restrictive contracting provisions—are discussed in more detail below.
Video programmers sign lengthy licensing agreements with distributors that establish the terms on which the distributors will carry the programmers' networks. Sometimes, these licensing agreements include restrictions on the other distributors to whom the programmer may license content, or on other ways the programmer may make the content available to consumers. One type of restriction is often referred to in the industry as an “alternative distribution means” (“ADM”) clause. ADM clauses take many forms, and in some cases can have significant consequences for programmers' ability to license to OVDs. For example, some ADMs prohibit a video programmer from licensing content to OVDs for an extended period of time after the content is first aired on traditional MVPDs—permanently blocking OVDs from being able to offer current-season content from those programmers. Other ADMs prohibit the programmer from licensing content to OVDs unless the OVDs meet a number of strict (and sometimes elaborate) criteria that can be difficult to satisfy.
TWC has been the most aggressive MVPD at seeking and obtaining restrictive ADM clauses in recent years. The Department's review of hundreds of programming contracts and ordinary course business documents revealed that TWC has obtained numerous ADMs that limit distribution to paid OVDs. Other distributors, by contrast, have rarely, if ever, sought or obtained such clauses, or have only obtained ADMs that are much less restrictive. TWC's success in seeking and obtaining ADMs is likely attributable in part to its bargaining leverage over video programmers; although such programmers might disfavor such restrictions because they require the programmer to forsake opportunities to earn revenues from OVDs, they are more likely to agree to a large MVPD such as TWC's demand to include them because they do not want to lose access to TWC's millions of cable subscribers.
The Department's investigation further suggested that TWC may be the most aggressive at obtaining such clauses because, other than Comcast, TWC has more to lose from the expansion of OVDs than any other traditional MVPD. Although Comcast also has substantial video profits at risk, it is prohibited from entering into or enforcing any provisions that restrict distribution to OVDs under the terms of a consent decree entered in
The number and scope of the ADMs that TWC obtained prior to the merger suggests that TWC believes that these ADM clauses are worth whatever consideration it must provide video programmers in return. After the merger, New Charter, with over 17 million video subscribers in 41 states, will have even more leverage than TWC to demand that programmers agree to ADMs. Given the importance of New Charter as a distribution channel, programmers will be less likely to risk losing access to New Charter's considerable subscriber base—which is almost 60 percent larger than TWC alone—and will be more likely to accept to New Charter's demands. Moreover, since New Charter will have far more profits at risk from increased OVD competition than Charter, TWC, or BHN standing alone, it will be willing to provide greater consideration to programmers to obtain such clauses. As a result, New Charter can be expected to seek and obtain ADMs with more programmers than TWC has to date, and the ADMs are likely to be more restrictive than TWC's current ADM provisions. As alleged in the Complaint, such ADMs could negatively affect OVDs' business models and undermine their ability to provide robust video offerings that compete with the offerings of traditional MVPDs. The weakening of OVD competition will result in lower-quality services, fewer consumer choices, and higher prices.
Successful entry into the traditional video programming distribution business is difficult and requires an enormous upfront investment to create a distribution infrastructure. As alleged in the Complaint, additional entry into wireline or DBS distribution is not likely to be significant for the next several years. Telcos have been willing to incur some of the enormous costs to modify their existing telephone infrastructure to distribute video, and will continue to do so, but only in certain areas. Other new providers, such as Google Fiber, are also expanding services, but the time and expense required to build to each new area makes expansion slow. Therefore, traditional MVPDs' market shares are likely to be fairly stable over the next several years.
OVDs represent the most likely prospect for successful and significant competitive entry into the existing video programming distribution market. However, in addition to the other barriers they face, OVDs must obtain access to a sufficient amount of content to become viable distribution businesses, and the proposed merger will likely increase that barrier to entry even further.
The proposed Final Judgment ensures that New Charter will not impede competition by using programming contracts to prevent the flow of content to OVDs. The proposed Final Judgment thereby protects consumers by eliminating the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger alleged in the Complaint.
As discussed above, certain types of contract provisions, such as ADMs, can have the purpose and effect of limiting distribution to OVDs. However, not all provisions that limit distribution are anticompetitive. Reflecting this reality, Sections IV.A and IV.B of the proposed Final Judgment set forth broad prohibitions on restrictive contracting practices, while Section IV.C delineates a narrowly tailored set of exceptions. Taken together, these provisions ensure that New Charter cannot use restrictive contract terms to harm the development of OVDs, but preserve programmers' incentives to produce quality programming and New Charter's ability to compete with other distributors to obtain marquee content.
Section IV.A of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits New Charter from entering into or enforcing agreements that forbid, limit, or create incentives to limit the provision of video programming to OVDs. This language prevents New Charter from enforcing the ADM provisions in current TWC contracts, or from entering into new provisions.
Section IV.B provides additional detail as to the types of terms that could create “incentives to limit” distribution to OVDs. The Department's investigation revealed that TWC has obtained ADM provisions for the purpose of attempting to limit distribution to OVDs. However, once those agreements are prohibited, New Charter could substitute ADMs with more subtle types of contract provisions that do not directly limit distribution to
Alternatively, New Charter could enter into certain kinds of “most favored nation” (“MFN”) provisions that are designed to create incentives to limit distribution to OVDs. Although MFN provisions are ubiquitous in the industry—for example, many MVPDs use MFN provisions entitling the MVPD to the lowest license fee that the programmer offers to any other MVPD—the Department's investigation revealed that some MVPDs were utilizing certain provisions that, while referred to as “MFNs,” actually require much more than equal treatment. Specifically, some provisions, commonly referred to as “unconditional MFNs” or “cherry-picking MFNs,” require that a programmer provide an MVPD the most favorable term the programmer has offered to any other distributor, even if that other distributor agreed to additional payment or other conditions in exchange for receiving that term.
Although unconditional MFNs are uncommon today, and the Defendants have only a few such provisions in their current contracts, the Department was concerned that New Charter could replace ADMs with unconditional MFNs in an effort to circumvent the proposed Final Judgment. For example, New Charter might obtain an unconditional MFN from a programmer that would entitle New Charter to receive at no additional cost any content a programmer makes available to an OVD, regardless of payments or other conditions with which the OVD must comply. In such case, by providing programming to an OVD, the programmer might face significant economic disadvantages in the form of losing the opportunity to monetize the content through distribution by New Charter. As a result, unconditional MFNs could create significant disincentives for programmers to license content to OVDs. For these reasons, Section IV.B.2 of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits New Charter from entering into or enforcing unconditional MFNs against programmers for distributing their content to OVDs.
Section IV.C of the proposed Final Judgment establishes three narrow exceptions to the broad prohibitions in Sections IV.A and IV.B. First, New Charter may prohibit the programmer from making content available on the Internet for free for 30 days after its initial airing, if New Charter has paid a fee for the video programming. The Department's investigation revealed that such limitations on free distribution are ubiquitous in the industry, and the Department has discovered no evidence that such provisions are harmful to competition.
Second, New Charter may enter into an agreement in which the programmer provides content exclusively to New Charter, and to no other MVPD or OVD. Although uncommon, a few programmers wish to make some of their content available to only one distributor. This relationship then incentivizes the distributor to vigorously market the content, and thus can be procompetitive in some circumstances. The proposed Final Judgment ensures that New Charter can continue to compete with other distributors to obtain these kinds of exclusives. As long as the exclusivity applies to
Third, New Charter may condition carriage of programming on its cable system on terms which require it to receive as favorable material terms as other MVPDs or OVDs, except to the extent such terms would be inconsistent with the purpose of the proposed Final Judgment. That is, New Charter may enter into the kinds of ordinary conditional MFNs that are ubiquitous in the industry, such as a provision which entitles New Charter to the lowest license fee paid by any other distributor. This provision explicitly does not override Section IV.B.2's ban on the application of unconditional MFNs to OVD distribution. Importantly, New Charter may not use MFNs as a back door to obtain provisions which are otherwise “inconsistent with the purpose of Sections A and B.” For instance, even if another distributor obtains a provision which “create[s] incentives to limit” a programmer's provision of programming to an OVD, New Charter cannot use an MFN to add that other distributor's provision to New Charter's own contract.
Section IV.D of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits Defendants from discriminating against, retaliating against, or punishing any Video Programmer for providing programming to any OVD. This provision ensures that even though Defendants are no longer permitted to contractually prohibit or deter video programmers from licensing content to OVDs, the Defendants are not able to instead deter such licensing through threats or punishment. Section IV.D also prohibits Defendants from discriminating against, retaliating against, or punishing any video programmer for invoking any provisions of the proposed Final Judgment or any FCC rule or order, or for furnishing information to the Department concerning Defendants' compliance with the proposed Final Judgment.
Negotiations between video programmers and MVPDs are often contentious, high-stakes affairs, and it is common for one or both sides to the negotiation to threaten to walk away, or even to temporarily terminate the relationship (sometimes called a “blackout” or “going dark”) in order to secure a better deal. The proposed Final Judgment is not concerned with such negotiating tactics and therefore clarifies that “[p]ursuing a more advantageous deal with a Video Programmer does not constitute discrimination, retaliation, or
Although the Department's Complaint focuses on the likely competitive harm resulting from New Charter's imposition of ADMs and other contractual restrictions on video programmers, the Department also investigated the potential for the proposed merger to increase the price New Charter will charge Internet content companies, including OVDs, for access to its broadband subscribers. OVDs rely on broadband connections provided by other companies to reach their customers, and the Defendants are also major providers of Internet access service. Therefore, the Department examined whether the merger could increase both the incentive and ability of New Charter to use its control over the interconnection to New Charter's broadband Internet service provider network to try and disadvantage online video competitors.
The FCC's order approving the merger imposes an obligation on New Charter to make interconnection available on a non-discriminatory, settlement-free basis to any Internet content provider, transit provider, or content delivery network (“CDN”) who meets certain basic criteria. Although this policy only directly protects those sending large volumes of traffic, even smaller sources who do not qualify for direct interconnection ought to find ample bandwidth available at competitive prices because large transit and CDN providers will be guaranteed access, and could resell that capacity. Thus, the Department expects that the FCC's order will prevent any merger-related harm to Internet content companies, including OVDs. In light of the FCC's remedy, the Department did not target interconnection in its Complaint and elected not to pursue duplicative relief with respect to interconnection in the proposed Final Judgment. However, in order to assist the Department in monitoring future developments with regard to interconnection and in taking whatever action might be appropriate to prevent anticompetitive conduct, Section IV.E requires New Charter to provide the Department with copies of the regular reports that New Charter furnishes to the FCC pursuant to the FCC's order.
Section VIII of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment will expire seven years from the date of entry. The Department believes this time period is long enough to ensure that New Charter cannot harm OVD competitors at a crucial point in their development while accounting for the rapidly evolving nature of the video distribution market. After five years, Section VIII permits Charter to request that the Department reevaluate whether the Final Judgment remains necessary to protect competition. If at such time the Department concludes that the market has evolved such that the protections of the decree are no longer necessary, it will recommend to the Court that the Final Judgment be terminated.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants' transactions and proceeding to a full trial on the merits. The United States is satisfied, however, that the relief in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the provision of video programming distribution services in the United States. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would protect competition as effectively as would any remedy available through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought,
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.'”
Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, at 6 (1973) (“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”).
Appendix B to the FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order,
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Complaint on April 25, 2016 alleging that Defendants propose to enter into transactions the likely effect of which would be to lessen competition substantially in the market for the timely distribution of professional, full-length video programming to residential customers (“video programming distribution”) across the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Plaintiff and Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, Plaintiff requires Defendants to agree to undertake certain actions and refrain from certain conduct for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to the United States that the actions and conduct restrictions can and will be undertaken and that Defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions contained below;
NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Advance/Newhouse” means defendant Advance/Newhouse Partnership, a New York partnership with headquarters in East Syracuse, New York, its successors and assigns, and its Subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees, in their capacity as directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees of the foregoing.
B. “Bright House” means defendant Bright House Networks, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with headquarters in East Syracuse, New York, its successors and assigns, and its Subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees, in their capacity as directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees of the foregoing.
C. “Charter” means defendant Charter Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, its successors and assigns (including, without limitation, CCH I, LLC), and its Subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees, in their capacity as directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees of the foregoing.
D. “Defendants” means Charter, TWC, Bright House, and Advance/Newhouse, acting individually or collectively. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Advance/Newhouse is not a “Defendant” for purposes of Section IV.
E. “Department of Justice” means the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division.
F. “MVPD” means a multichannel video programming distributor as that term is defined on the date of entry of this Final Judgment in 47 CFR 76.1200(b), in its capacity as an MVPD.
G. “OVD” means any service that (1) distributes Video Programming in the United States by means of the Internet; (2) is not a component of an MVPD subscription; and (3) is not solely available to customers of an Internet access service owned or operated by the Person providing the service or an affiliate of the Person providing the service. For avoidance of doubt, this definition (1) includes a service offered by a Video Programmer for the distribution of its own Video
H. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, company, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, office, or other business or legal entity, whether private or governmental.
I. “Subsidiary” refers to any Person in which there is partial (25 percent or more) or total ownership or control between the specified Person and any other Person. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Subsidiary shall not include any Person in which a Defendant does not have majority ownership or de facto control if that Person does not provide MVPD service.
J. “TWC” means defendant Time Warner Cable Inc, a New York corporation with headquarters in New York, New York, its successors and assigns, and its Subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees, in their capacity as directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees of the foregoing.
K. “Video Programmer” means any Person that provides Video Programming for distribution through MVPDs, in its capacity as a Video Programmer.
L. “Video Programming” means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station or cable network, regardless of the medium or method used for distribution, and, without expanding the foregoing, includes programming prescheduled by the programming provider (also known as scheduled programming or a linear feed); programming offered to viewers on an on-demand, point-to-point basis (also known as video on demand); pay per view or transactional video on demand; short programming segments related to other full-length programming (also known as clips); programming that includes multiple video sources (also known as feeds, including camera angles); programming that includes video in different qualities or formats (including high-definition and 3D); and films for which a year or more has elapsed since their theatrical release.
This Final Judgment applies to Defendants and all other Persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
A. Defendants shall not enter into or enforce any agreement with a Video Programmer under which Defendants forbid, limit, or create incentives to limit the Video Programmer's provision of its Video Programming to one or more OVDs.
B. Agreements that “create incentives to limit” a Video Programmer's provision of its Video Programming to one or more OVDs within the meaning of Section IV.A shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. agreements that provide for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary penalty on the Video Programmer for the provision of its Video Programming to an OVD, such as rate reductions, re-tiering or re-positioning penalties, termination rights for Defendants, or loss or waiver of any rights or benefits otherwise available to the Video Programmer; or
2. agreements that entitle Defendants to receive any benefits such as favorable rates, contract terms, or content rights offered or granted to an OVD by a Video Programmer without requiring Defendants to also accept any obligations, limitations, or conditions:
i. that are integrally related, logically linked, or directly tied to the offering or grant of such rights or benefits, and
ii. with which Defendants can reasonably comply technologically and legally. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants will be deemed able to “reasonably comply technologically” if they are able to implement an obligation, limitation, or condition in a technologically equivalent manner.
C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Final Judgment shall prohibit Defendants from:
1. entering into and enforcing an agreement under which Defendants discourage or prohibit a Video Programmer from making Video Programming for which Defendants pay available to consumers for free over the Internet within the first 30 days after Defendants first distribute the Video Programming to consumers;
2. entering into and enforcing an agreement under which the Video Programmer provides Video Programming exclusively to Defendants, and to no other MVPD or OVD; or
3. entering into and enforcing an agreement which requires that Defendants receive as favorable material terms as other MVPDs or OVDs, except to the extent application of other MVPDs' or OVDs' terms would be inconsistent with the purpose of Sections A and B of this Section IV.
D. Defendants shall not discriminate against, retaliate against, or punish any Video Programmer (i) for providing Video Programming to any MVPD or OVD, (ii) for invoking any provisions of this Final Judgment, (iii) for invoking the provisions of any rules or orders concerning Video Programming adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, or (iv) for furnishing information to the United States concerning Defendants' compliance or noncompliance with this Final Judgment. Pursuing a more advantageous deal with a Video Programmer does not constitute discrimination, retaliation, or punishment.
E. Defendants shall submit to the Department of Justice all reports and data relating to interconnection with the Defendants' broadband Internet access network that are required to be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to any rule or order of the Commission, at the same time such reports or data are required to be submitted to the Commission.
A. For purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the Department of Justice, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to Defendants, be permitted:
1. access during the Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendants to provide to the United States hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, the Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Defendants shall submit written reports or respond to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States or the Federal Communications Commission, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by a Defendant to the United States, the Defendant represents and identifies in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Defendant marks each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give the Defendant ten calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any civil or administrative proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Nothing in this Final Judgment shall limit the right of the United States to investigate and bring actions to prevent or restrain violations of the antitrust laws concerning any past, present, or future conduct, policy, or practice of the Defendants.
This Final Judgment shall expire seven years from the date of its entry. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendants may request after five years that the Department of Justice examine competitive conditions and determine whether the Final Judgment continues to be necessary to protect competition. If after examination of competitive conditions the Department of Justice in its sole discretion concludes that the Final Judgment should be terminated, it will recommend to the Court that the Final Judgment be terminated.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Pursuant to the authority contained in section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 181st meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on June 7-9, 2016.
The three-day meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 in C5320 Room 6. The meeting will run from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. on June 7-8 and from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on June 9, with a one hour break for lunch each day. The purpose of the open meeting is for Advisory Council members to hear testimony from invited witnesses and to receive an update from the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). The EBSA update is scheduled for the morning of June 9, subject to change.
The Advisory Council will study the following topics: (1) Cybersecurity Considerations for Benefit Plans, on June 7 and (2) Participant Plan Transfers and Account Consolidation for the Advancement of Lifetime Plan Participation, on June 8. The schedule is subject to change. The Council will discuss both topics on June 9. Descriptions of these topics are available on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA Web site, at
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 35 copies on or before May 31, 2016 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in word processing or pdf format transmitted to
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary by May 31.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the applications of Nemko-CCL, Inc. for expansion of its scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the applications.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before June 1, 2016.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Nemko-CCL, Inc. (CCL), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. CCL requests the addition of two (2) recognized testing and certification sites, and twenty-two (22) additional test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition. Additionally, CCL is applying to relocate its headquarters to Ottawa, Canada, after its existing headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah was destroyed in a fire.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, section 1910.7 (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
CCL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Nemko-CCL 1940 West Alexander Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-2039. A complete list of CCL sites recognized by OSHA is available at
CCL submitted two applications, one dated January 28, 2015 (OSHA-2013-0016-008), and a second dated January 26, 2016 (OSHA-2013-0016-009), to expand its recognition to include the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites located at: Nemko North America, Inc., 2210 Faraday Avenue, Suite 150, Carlsbad, California 92008; and Nemko Canada, Inc., 303 River Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1V 1H2. OSHA staff performed an on-site review of CCL's testing facilities on November 17-18, 2015, at CCL Ottawa, and on January 11-12, 2016, at CCL California. During these assessments, the assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. CCL addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the applications.
CCL's first application also requested the addition of twenty-two test standards to its scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet, reviewed other pertinent information, and conducted the on-site reviews described above in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in CCL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
On October 28, 2015, CCL provided notice to OSHA that their company headquarters located at 1940 West Alexander Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-2039 had been completely destroyed in a fire that occurred on October 25, 2015. CCL temporarily moved their testing operations to their Ottawa and California locations while searching for a location to re-establish their headquarters. OSHA advised CCL that their inability to perform testing at their recognized site could lead to revocation from the NRTL Program, but proceeded to conduct the November 2015 and January 2016 on-site assessments of the Ottawa and California proposed sites because these assessments were scheduled before the fire occurred. In January of 2016, CCL advised OSHA that they wanted to move their headquarters to the Ottawa, Canada site and had secured a new location for their Salt Lake City, Utah site, which would now serve as an administrative site with no test capabilities. OSHA performed an electronic assessment of this new administrative site located at Nemko-CCL, Inc. 2964 West 4700 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84129, on February 17, 2016.
CCL submitted acceptable applications for expansion of its scope of recognition, and relocation of its company headquarters. OSHA's review of the application files and its detailed on-site and electronic assessments indicate that CCL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these two sites and twenty-two test standards for NRTL testing and certification and the new headquarters site. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of CCL's applications.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CCL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely
OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of availability of funds and funding opportunity announcements (FOA) for Targeted Topic Training and Capacity Building grants.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 17.502.
This notice announces availability of approximately $4.5 million for Susan Harwood Training Program grants. Two separate funding opportunity announcements are available for Targeted Topic Training grants and Capacity Building grants. Two types of grants are being announced under each funding opportunity. Funding Opportunity Number SHTG-FY-16-01 will cover the two types of Targeted Topic Training grants: (1) Targeted Topic Training and (2) Targeted Topic Training and Educational Materials Development grants. Funding Opportunity Number SHTG-FY-16-02 will cover the two types of Capacity Building grants: (1) Capacity Building Developmental and (2) Capacity Building Pilot grants.
Grant applications for both Targeted Topic Training and Capacity Building grants must be received electronically by the
The complete Susan Harwood Training Grant Program funding opportunity announcements and all information needed to apply for these funding opportunities are available at the
Questions regarding the funding opportunity announcements should be emailed to
Questions regarding
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (29 U.S.C. 670), Public Law 113-235, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice soliciting comments on motion for partial distribution.
The Copyright Royalty Judges solicit comments on a motion for partial distribution in connection with 2012 and 2013 DART Musical Works Fund royalties.
Comments are due on or before June 16, 2016.
This notice and request for comments is also posted on the agency's Web site (
Kimberly Whittle, attorney-advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
On April 3, 2016, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), SESAC, Inc. (SESAC) (together the Performing Rights Organizations or PROs) and The Harry Fox Agency LLC (with the PROs, the Settling Claimants) filed with the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) a
The Settling Claimants contend that they are, or they represent, “the vast majority” of claimants entitled to the Musical Works Fund royalties at issue in this proceeding. As support for their request, the Settling Claimants assert that, since 1997, non-settling music writer or publisher claimants have established claims to and have received less than 0.1% of the Musical Works Fund, if any. The Settling Claimants request a partial distribution of 95% of the subject royalty funds pursuant to Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act (Act).
Under section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Act, before ruling on a partial distribution motion the Judges must publish a notice
Interested claimants must submit comments to only
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide agencies with mandatory instructions for what to do with records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The instructions authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by June 16, 2016. Once NARA appraises the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media-neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media-neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media-neutral unless the item is specifically limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or lists that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0161-2016-0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records
2. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (DAA-0462-2016-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to collect and track data relating to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0007, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to requests for waivers for applicants who do not meet established standards for enlistment in the Army.
4. Department of the Army, Agency wide (DAA-AU-2016-0018, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of economic data gathered during water management projects.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DAA-0507-2016-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Revision of item for foreign military sales case files to add collection and disbursement vouchers.
6. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0016, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to policies and procedures for verifying location of weapons systems.
7. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0030, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to the development of strategic plans including balanced scorecard and program review documentation.
8. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2015-0014, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records related to removal travel operations including copies of international deportation agreements, guidance briefings, detainee custody review case files, and transportation logistics materials.
9. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2016-0012, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Undeliverable and returned outgoing mail, to include submitted documentation and notices.
10. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (DAA-0436-2016-0001, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to collect and manage information gathered in the investigation of reported incidents of internal misconduct.
11. Department of Labor, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (DAA-0174-2013-0003, 9 items, 8 temporary items). Records related to congressional and intergovernmental affairs including correspondence and casework files, notification and announcement files, work files, appointment files, subject files, general correspondence, and related materials. Proposed for permanent retention are memorandum files.
12. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0007, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used for fraud detection.
13. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0009, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used for transaction processing and data validation.
14. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0010, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to detect fraudulent tax return filings.
15. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0011, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of a Web site used to support a taxpayer rights conference.
16. Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Agency-wide (DAA-0562-2014-0002, 4 items, 1 temporary item). Internal administrative directives. Proposed for permanent retention are records of high-level officials, mission-related policies and procedures, and annual reports and strategic plans.
17. Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Agency-wide (DAA-0562-2016-0001, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records documenting court-ordered expunction.
18. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (DAA-0412-2016-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Electronic data obtained from injection well activity reports and managed by the Underground Injection Control Program Summary System.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, NARA announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be on June 13, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.
Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC209-08 (Senate Visitor Center).
Center for Legislative Archives at (202) 357-5350 or Sharon Fitzpatrick by email at:
The committee advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Legislative Archives, Presidential Libraries, and Museum Services (LPM).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
June 23, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission,
This proceeding involves a challenge to an application by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. for an amendment to the operating licenses for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia. In response to a notice of the license amendment application filed in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Rockville, Maryland.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS) to inform nuclear power reactor licensees of existing requirements related to dispositioning information pertaining to the capability of safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their safety-related functions in nuclear power plants. The draft RIS addresses instances where a licensee becomes aware of credible information pertaining to the time period that a safety-related structure, system, or component is installed that may negatively impact its ability to perform its safety-related function or functions. Licensees must address this information consistent with their licensing basis and applicable NRC requirements.
Submit comments by July 18, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
John Thompson, telephone: 301-415-1011, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0098 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0098 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC staff has developed draft RIS 2016-xx, “Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period that Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components are Installed,” to clarify NRC requirements and programs that provide quality assurance and ensure the operability of safety-related SSCs. When a licensee either becomes aware that a safety-related SSC has been installed for longer that the amount of time described in the licensing basis, or becomes aware of credible information that challenges the presumption that a safety-related SSC can continue to perform its safety function(s), the licensee must assess the information consistent with their licensing basis and applicable NRC requirements. These instances must be addressed in accordance with a licensee's NRC-approved quality assurance program, operability/functionality determination process, and corrective action program.
The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of matters. This may include clarification of existing requirements and regulations.
The NRC is requesting public comment on the draft RIS. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to discuss this draft RIS. All comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must still be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program.” Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to exclude options overlying NDX
Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of five tiers that pay Customer rebates on three Categories, A,
Today, options overlying NDX and MNX are included in the total volume to qualify a market participant for a Customer Rebate. The Exchange is proposing to continue to permit the electronically-delivered and executed volume associated with options overlying NDX and MNX to be included in the calculation of total market volume. The Exchange proposes to exclude options overlying NDX and MNX as eligible to receive a Customer Rebate in any Category.
In calculating electronically-delivered and executed Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options, the numerator of the equation will remain unchanged and will continue to include all electronically-delivered and executed Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options, including NDX and MNX. The denominator of that equation will also remain unchanged and will continue to include national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options volume. By including options overlying NDX and MNX in the computation for Customer Rebates, members will continue to receive the benefit of those transactions toward calculating their eligible rebate tiers and earning a rebate on all qualifying transactions.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to not pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX because of the exclusivity of these options. NDX and MNX are Phlx proprietary index options which currently trade on Phlx and one other options exchange. Therefore, the Exchange would not pay rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX as part of the Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes members will continue to be afforded an opportunity to achieve new Customer Rebate Program tiers or maintain their current level of Customer Rebate Program tiers.
The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
It is reasonable to no longer pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX in any Category (A, B or C) because these proprietary index options only trade on two options markets at this time. The original intent of the Customer Rebate Program was to pay rebates on electronically-delivered Multiply-Listed Options. By definition, these indices qualify as Multiply-Listed Options because they trade on more than one options exchange. These proprietary index options trade on Phlx and one other options exchange. The Exchange does not desire to pay rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX because of their exclusivity. Despite the fact that technically these options trade on more than one venue, other exchanges cannot list these options. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to count options overlying NDX and MNX in the total volume to qualify a market participant for a Customer Rebate, however, options overlying NDX and MNX will no longer be paid the Customer rebates in any Category because of the exclusivity of this option. Market participants would continue to benefit from NDX and MNX options volume in terms of qualifying for Customer Rebate Tiers. The Exchange believes that not paying Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX further aligns these products with other Singly Listed Options as compared to Multiply-Listed Options.
It is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to no longer pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX in any Category because the Exchange would apply its calculation to determine the eligibility and payment of Customer rebates in a uniform manner. The Exchange's proposal to no longer pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX in any Category is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would no longer pay Customer Rebates on any transaction with options overlying either NDX or MNX to any market participant. Also, any market participant is eligible to earn a Customer Rebate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
The Exchange's proposal to no longer pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX in any Category does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange would apply the calculation of Customer rebates and would pay rebates on qualifying orders in a uniform manner. No market participant would be paid a Customer Rebate in options overlying NDX or MNX. All market participants may participate in the Customer Rebate Program. Members would continue to benefit from the inclusion of options overlying NDX and MNX in the total volume to qualify a market participant for a Customer Rebate.
Also, the Exchange's proposal to no longer pay Customer Rebates on options overlying NDX and MNX in any Category does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because there is only one other exchange that transacts options overlying NDX and MNX through a contractual agreement with the Exchange. That venue may choose to also not pay rebates on options overlying NDX or MNX. Other venues may not list these proprietary indices.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify the account categories to be used for positions of affiliates of Clearing Members.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe submits proposed amendments to its Clearing Procedures to clarify the account categories in which positions of affiliates of Clearing Members are to be maintained, in light of applicable US and EU regulatory requirements. ICE Clear Europe does not propose to amend its Rules in connection with these changes.
Under CFTC rules, the positions of an affiliate of an FCM are considered “proprietary” for purposes of segregation requirements and thus cannot be held in a customer account.
Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend paragraph 2.3(b) of the Clearing Procedures to establish new position-keeping accounts, labeled the “F” and “R” accounts, which will be required to be used for all positions of affiliates of FCM/BD Clearing Members. The “F” account will use a gross margin model (for positions in contracts margined on a gross basis under the Rules and Procedures); the “R” account will use a net margin model (for positions in contracts margined on a net basis under the Rules and Procedures). Both accounts will be treated as separate Proprietary Accounts for purposes of the Rules (and accordingly the accounts will not constitute Customer Accounts of the FCM/BD Clearing Member). New paragraph 2.3(f) has been added to provide a definition of “affiliate” for this purpose, based on the relevant definitions of proprietary accounts under CFTC rules.
Paragraph 2.3 has also been revised to clarify the treatment of positions of affiliates of Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members. New paragraph 2.3(f) also includes a definition of “affiliate” for this purpose, based on the EMIR definition of “group.” Conforming changes have been made to paragraph 2.3(b)(4) to use such definition. Additional clarifications have been made in paragraph 2.3(b)(5) as to the use by certain Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members of the “T” and “K” accounts (as separate Segregated Customer Omnibus Accounts for F&O or Segregated TTFCA Customer Omnibus Accounts for F&O) and of the “F” and “R” accounts as available for holding positions of their affiliates. Paragraph 2.3(c) has been revised to clarify that the Clearing House may establish additional position-keeping accounts for a Clearing Member to facilitate separate tracking of positions for each exchange non-clearing member for which the Clearing Member provides services. The revisions also clarify the treatment of such position-keeping accounts for exchange members as customer or proprietary, consistent with the requirements of the Rules and Clearing Procedures and applicable law.
Amendments to paragraph 3.1(a) of the Clearing Procedures provide for the margining of the “F” and “R” accounts of FCM/BD Clearing members as separate Proprietary Accounts. The summary table following paragraph 3.2 of the Clearing Procedures has been amended to conform to the other changes made in the Clearing Procedures.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the Clearing Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments are designed to clarify the treatment of positions of affiliates of Clearing Members in light of applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Specifically, for FCM/BD Clearing Members, the amendments establish separate accounts in which such positions must be held, in a manner that is consistent with both CFTC and EMIR requirements. Such accounts will allow positions of affiliates to be held separately from the Clearing Member's positions, consistent with the EMIR requirements, but will be treated as Proprietary Accounts under the Rules and Procedures, consistent with CFTC rules. The amendments also clarify the treatment of positions of affiliates of Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members, consistent with EMIR requirements. Overall, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments will enhance its ability (and that of its Clearing Members) to track positions of Clearing Member affiliates and comply with relevant regulatory obligations. As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of derivative transactions, are consistent with the safeguarding of funds and securities in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe, and generally further the public interest. The amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the Rules discussed herein would have any adverse impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify the treatment of positions of affiliates of Clearing Member, consistent with applicable legal requirements. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would adversely affect access to clearing by Clearing Members or their affiliates (or customers), adversely affect competition among Clearing Members or adversely affect the market for clearing services or limit market participants' choices for clearing transactions. Although the proposed amendments may impose additional compliance costs on Clearing Members, including because of the requirements to hold affiliate positions in separate accounts that are separately margined, ICE Clear Europe believes that such costs reflect, and are appropriate in light of, the legal requirements applicable to such positions. Although the amendments treat affiliate positions of FCM/BD Clearing Members and Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members differently in certain respects, in ICE Clear Europe's view such differences also result from the different legal frameworks applicable to such Clearing Members. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the proposed amendments to the Clearing Procedures will impose any burden on competition not appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
ICE Clear Europe has not solicited or received any written comments with respect to the proposed changes. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2016-006 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2016.
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 filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to delete the IOCM and ICMT routing options. The Exchange also proposes to amend its fee schedule to delete: (i) References to the IOCM and ICMT routing options under footnotes 7 and 12; and (ii) fee code MT, which is yielded on MidPoint Peg Orders
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to delete the IOCM and ICMT routing options. The Exchange also proposes to amend its fee schedule to delete: (i) References to the IOCM and ICMT routing options under footnotes 7 and 12; and (ii) fee code MT, which is yielded on MidPoint Peg Orders routed to EDGX using the IOCM or ICMT routing options.
Under Rule 11.11(g)(11), an order utilizing the IOCM routing option checks the System
Fee codes CR and XR are yielded to orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange using an eligible routing option. Footnote 7 of the Exchanges fee schedule lists the eligible routing options for fee code XR, which includes the IOCM routing option and footnote 12 lists the eligible routing options for fee code CR, which includes the ICMT routing option. Fee code MT is yielded on MidPoint Peg Orders routed to EDGX using the IOCM or ICMT routing options. Orders that yield fee code MT pay a fee of $0.0029 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of the trade's dollar value for securities priced below $1.00.
Because few Users elect the IOCM or ICMT routing options, the Exchange has determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the products. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the IOCM and ICMT routing options under Rule 11.11(g)(11) and (12) as well as a reference to the IOCM and ICMT routing options under Rule 11.11(g)(15). The Exchange also proposes to amend its fee schedule to delete: (i) References to the IOCM and ICMT routing options under footnotes 7 and 12; and (ii) fee code MT, which is yielded on MidPoint Peg Orders routed to EDGX using the IOCM or ICMT routing options. Users seeking to route midpoint eligible orders to EDGX may use alternative methods, such as connecting to EDGX directly or through a third party service provider, or electing another routing option offered by the Exchange that enables a User to post an order to certain primary listing markets.
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule change on May 6, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among customers,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by eliminating the IOCM and ICMT routing options that are to be discontinued by the Exchange.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to: (1) Modify an existing tier and add a new tier to its existing tiered pricing structure; and (2) simplify the Exchange's routing fees, as further described below.
The Exchange currently offers two pricing tiers under footnotes 1 and 2 of the fee schedule, Customer Volume Tiers and Market Maker Volume Tiers, respectively. Under the tiers, Members that achieve certain volume criteria may qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates for Customer
Fee code PC and NC are currently appended to all Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities
Pursuant to Customer Volume Tier 6, a Member currently will receive a rebate of $0.21 per contract where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV. In order to encourage the entry of additional orders to the Exchange, Exchange proposes to modify Customer Volume Tier 6 to reduce the criteria necessary to qualify. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide the same rebate, $0.21 per contract, as it currently provides for Customer Volume Tier 6, but to provide such rebate where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.20% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.15% of average TCV. The Exchange believes that this change will make Customer Volume Tier 6 more attainable for additional Members.
Fee code PM and NM are currently appended to all Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively, and result in a standard fee of $0.19 per contract. The Market Maker Volume Tiers in footnote 2 consist of six separate tiers, each providing a reduced fee or rebate to a Member's Market Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying monthly volume criteria required by the respective tier. For instance, pursuant to Market Maker Volume Tier 1, the lowest volume tier, a Member will pay a reduced fee of $0.16 per contract where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.05% of average TCV. Pursuant to Market Maker Volume Tier 6, the highest volume tier, a Member will receive a rebate of $0.01 per contract where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 1.10% of average TCV.
In addition to the change to the qualifying criteria for Customer Volume Tier 6 set forth above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Market Maker Volume Tier with the same criteria as amended Customer Volume Tier 6. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
The Exchange notes that the reduced fee of $0.10 per contract is the same fee as Market Maker Volume Tier 3, which is provided where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.20% of average TCV. By introducing Tier 7, the Exchange is providing an additional mechanism for a Member to achieve this reduced fee. The Exchange also notes that the proposed fee and associated criteria are intended to encourage the entry of both Customer orders and Market Maker orders by providing a hybrid tier that rewards the entry of both. Although the qualifying criteria includes Customer orders, as noted above, the proposed reduced fee of $0.10 per contract would only be awarded to a Member's Market Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying the monthly volume criteria (and not such Member's Customer orders). However, as noted above, because the criteria are the same, a Member qualifying for Market Maker Volume Tier 7 would also qualify for Customer Volume Tier 6, and thus would be entitled to enhanced rebates for such Member's Customer orders.
In addition to the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to add the phrase “of average TCV” to the end of the criteria for existing Market Making Volume Tiers 1 through 6. Although the filing initially adopting such tiers did include the language in describing the applicable criteria, the Exchange believes that such language is appropriate for the fee schedule. This change would ensure that the language of footnote 2 is consistent with footnote 1, which does include this phrase in each Tier's criteria description. The Exchange also proposes to change all references to “Customer Orders” to “Customer orders” and from “Market Maker Orders” to “Market Maker orders” throughout footnote 1 and footnote 2. These changes will also ensure consistency on the fee schedule with respect to the word “order”, which is not contained in any of the defined terms on the fee schedule.
The Exchange proposes to modify the fees charged for orders routed away from the Exchange and executed at various away options exchanges. The Exchange currently has specific rates and associated fee codes for each away options exchange.
With respect to Non-Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to adopt two fee codes: (1) Fee code RN, which would result in a fee of $0.85 per contract and would apply to all Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities; and (2) fee code RO, which would result in a fee of $1.20 per contract and would apply to all Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities. The Exchange notes that the current range of fees applicable to Non-Customer orders routed to other options exchanges is from $0.60 per contract (fee code RF, applicable to Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities executed at BZX Options) to $1.25 per contract (fee code QG, applicable to Non-Customer orders executed at NOM in Non-Penny Pilot Securities).
With respect to Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to adopt three fee codes: (1) Fee code RP, which would result in a fee of $0.25 per contract and would apply to all Customer orders routed to and executed at AMEX, BOX, BX Options, CBOE, ISE Mercury, MIAX or PHLX; (2) fee code RQ, which would result in a fee of $0.70 per contract and would apply to all Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities routed to and executed at ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM; and (3) fee code RR, which would result in a fee of $0.90 per contract and would apply to all Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities routed to and executed at ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM. The Exchange notes that the current range of fees applicable to Customer orders routed to other options exchanges is from no charge per contract (fee code BD, applicable to Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities executed at BX Options) to $0.94 per contract (fee code RD, applicable to Customer orders executed at BZX Options in Non-Penny Pilot Securities).
As a general matter, the groupings described above in most instances attempt to differentiate between the Routing Costs applicable to either executions of orders in Penny Pilot Securities versus those in Non-Penny Pilot Securities or between fee ranges typical of exchanges that operate primarily a maker/taker or price/time market model (generally imposing higher fees, including for Customer orders) versus exchanges that operate primarily a pro rata or customer priority market model (generally imposing lower fees, especially for Customer orders).
As set forth above, the Exchange's proposed approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain flat fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges. The Exchange will then monitor the fees charged as compared to the costs of its routing services, as well as monitoring for specific fee changes by other options exchanges, and intends to adjust its flat routing fees and/or groupings to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed result in a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not significantly higher or lower in any area. Although there may be instances where the Exchanges [sic] fee to a particular options exchange is indeed significantly higher than the fee charged by such
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule immediately.
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 of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposed fees and rebates pursuant to the tiered pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants may readily send order flow to many competing venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive. As a new options exchange, the proposed fee structure remains intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a competitive yet simple pricing structure. At the same time, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to incrementally adopt incentives intended to help to contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
Volume-based rebates such as those currently maintained on the Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The proposed modification to the Customer Volume Tier and the proposed addition of Market Maker Volume Tier 7 is each intended to incentivize Members to send additional Customer orders and Market Maker orders to the Exchange in an effort to qualify for the enhanced rebate or lower fee made available by the tiers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth above with respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such changes will incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality. The proposed tiers will provide an additional way for market participants to qualify for enhanced rebates or reduced fees. The Exchange also believes that the proposed tiered pricing structure is consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as other options exchanges and does not represent a significant departure from such pricing structures.
With respect to the proposed routing structure, the Exchange again notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. As explained above, the Exchange proposes to approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing, in order to provide a simplified and easy to understand pricing model. The Exchange believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure for orders routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing, as it will provide certainty with respect to execution fees at groups of away options exchanges. In order to achieve its flat fee structure, taking all costs to the Exchange into account, the Exchange will necessarily charge a higher premium to route to certain options exchanges than to others. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing routing services to such exchanges and to make some additional profit in exchange for the services it provides. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and executed at these away options exchanges is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members. Finally, the Exchange notes that it intends to consistently evaluate its routing fees, including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the extent it was recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to away options exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposal is a competitive proposal that is seeking to further the growth of the Exchange and to simplify the Exchange's fees for routing orders to away options exchanges. With respect to the tiered pricing changes, the Exchange has structured the proposed fees and rebates to attract additional volume in Market Maker and Customer orders, however, the Exchange believes that its pricing for all capacities is competitive with that offered by other options exchanges. With respect to the proposed routing fee structure, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are competitive in that they will provide a simple approach to routing pricing that some Members may favor. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing, including pricing for transactions on the Exchange as well as routing fees, if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. In particular, with respect to routing services, such services are available to Members from other broker-dealers as well as other options exchanges. The Exchange also notes that Members may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to avoid incurring routing fees.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective May 2, 2016. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the definition of a Firm Facilitation trade to include Broker-Dealers, which would be consistent with the treatment of such transactions on another options market. The Exchange proposes to implement the change effective on May 2, 2016.
The current Fee Schedule defines a “Firm Facilitation” trade as “a Manual trade that is executed in open outcry, in which one counterparty clears in the Firm range at the OCC, the other counterparty clears in the Customer range at the OCC, and both counterparties have the same Clearing Member symbol or identification.”
The Exchange proposes to modify the definition of Firm Facilitation to include Manual trades clearing in the
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the definition of Firm Facilitation trades is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would align the scope of such trades with how trades are characterized on at least one other options exchange, thereby encouraging greater harmonization across exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed change is consistent with the Act because they it attract greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing tighter quoting and better prices, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. 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 solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 6, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
Mark N. Zaruba, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6878 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Corporation is a Maryland corporation and is registered as an open-end management investment company. Each Trust and the Corporation has issued one or more series, each of which has its own investment objective and its own investment policies.
2. The Funds may lend cash to banks or other entities by entering into repurchase agreements or purchasing short-term instruments. The Funds may also need to borrow money for temporary purposes. In order to meet an unexpected volume of redemptions or to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, the Metropolitan West Funds have contracted for a revolving credit facility with the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, and other lenders that may be added in the future to the lending syndicate (“Bank Borrowing”). The TCW Alternative Funds and TCW Funds, Inc. may in the future join this credit facility or enter into other arrangements with other bank lenders (each also a “Bank Borrowing”). The amount of borrowing under each of these lines of credit is limited to the amount specified by fundamental investment restrictions, the terms specified in the agreements, and/or other policies of the applicable Fund and section 18 of the Act.
3. If Funds that experience a cash shortfall were to draw down on their Bank Borrowing, they would pay interest at a rate that is likely to be higher than the rate that could be earned by non-borrowing Funds on investments in repurchase agreements and other short-term money market instruments of the same maturity as the Bank Borrowing (“Short-Term Instruments”). Applicants assert the difference between the higher rate paid on Bank Borrowing and what the bank pays to borrow under repurchase agreements or other arrangements represents the bank's profit for serving as the middleperson between a borrower and lender and is not attributable to any material difference in the credit quality or risk of such transactions.
4. The Funds seek to enter into master interfund lending agreements with each other (the “InterFund Program”) that would permit each Fund whose policies permit it to do so to lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds for temporary purposes through the InterFund Program (an “Interfund Loan”). The Money Market Funds will not participate as borrowers. Applicants state that the requested will relief enable the Funds to access an available source of money and reduce costs incurred by the Funds that need to obtain loans for temporary purposes and permit those Funds that have cash
5. Applicants anticipate that the proposed InterFund Program would provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when shareholder redemptions exceed anticipated cash volumes and certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). However, redemption requests normally are effected on the day following the trade date. The proposed InterFund Program would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of portfolio securities.
6. Applicants also anticipate that a Fund could use the InterFund Program when a sale of securities “fails” due to circumstances beyond the Fund's control, such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. “Sales fails” may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security using the proceeds from securities sold. Alternatively, the Fund could: (i) “Fail” on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from the previous sale, resulting in additional cost to the Fund; or (ii) sell a security on a same-day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the investment. Use of the InterFund Program under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity.
7. While Bank Borrowing and/or custodian overdrafts generally could supply Funds with needed cash to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed InterFund Program, a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those that would be payable under short-term loans offered by banks or custodian overdrafts. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in Short-Term Instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the proposed InterFund Program would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
8. The interest rate to be charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate would be the highest current overnight repurchase agreement rate available to a lending Fund. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by the InterFund Program Team, as defined below, on each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula established by each Fund's board of trustees (the “Board”) intended to approximate the lowest interest rate at which a bank short-term loan would be available to the Fund. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (
9. Certain members of the Advisers' administration personnel (other than investment advisory personnel) (the “InterFund Program Team”) would administer the InterFund Program. No portfolio manager of any Fund will serve as a member of the InterFund Program Team. Under the proposed InterFund Program, the portfolio managers for each participating Fund could provide standing instructions to participate daily as a borrower or lender. The InterFund Program Team on each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds. Once the InterFund Program Team has determined the aggregate amount of cash available for loans and borrowing demand, the InterFund Program Team will allocate loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from the portfolio managers of the Funds. Applicants anticipate that there typically will be far more available uninvested cash each day than borrowing demand. Therefore, after the InterFund Program Team has allocated cash for Interfund Loans, the InterFund Program Team will invest any remaining cash in accordance with the standing instructions of the relevant portfolio manager or such remaining amounts will be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
10. The InterFund Program Team would allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the InterFund Program Team believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of filing requests to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each Interfund Loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by the Board of each of the Funds, including a majority of the Board members who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Board Members”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.
11. The InterFund Program Team, on behalf of the Advisers. would: (a) Monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans; (b) limit the borrowings and loans entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's investment policies and limitations; (c) implement and follow procedures designed to ensure equitable treatment of each Fund; and (d) make quarterly reports to the Board of each Fund concerning any transactions by the applicable Fund under the InterFund Program and the Interfund Loan Rate.
12. The Advisers, through the InterFund Program Team, would administer the InterFund Program as disinterested fiduciaries as part of their duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the InterFund Program.
13. No Fund may participate in the InterFund Program unless: (a) The Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such approval is required by law; (b) the Fund has fully disclosed all material information concerning the InterFund Program in its registration statement on Form N-1A; and (c) the Fund's participation in the InterFund Program is consistent with its
14. As part of the Board's review of the continuing appropriateness of a Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility as required by condition 14, the Board of the Fund, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, also will review the process in place to appropriately assess: (i) If the Fund participates as a lender, any effect its participation may have on the Fund's liquidity risk; and (ii) if the Fund participates as a borrower, whether the Fund's portfolio liquidity is sufficient to satisfy its obligations under the facility along with its other liquidity needs.
15. In connection with the InterFund Program, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act exempting them from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting them from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions.
1. Section 17(a)(3) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from the registered investment company. Section 21(b) of the Act generally prohibits any registered management company from lending money or other property to any person, directly or indirectly, if that person controls or is under common control with that company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person, in part, to be any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the “power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company,” but excludes circumstances in which “such power is solely the result of an official position with such company.” Applicants state that the Funds may be under common control by virtue of having common investment advisers and/or by having common trustees, directors, managers and/or officers.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.
3. Applicants assert that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a party with strong potential adverse interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of such party and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the proposed transactions do not raise these concerns because: (a) The Advisers, through the InterFund Program Team members, would administer the InterFund Program as disinterested fiduciaries as part of their duties under the investment management and administrative agreements with each Fund; (b) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term investments; (c) the Interfund Loans would not involve a greater risk than such other investments; (d) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could otherwise obtain through such other investments; and (e) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements or through custodian overdrafts and avoid the commitment fees associated with lines of credit. Moreover, applicants assert that the other terms and conditions that applicants propose also would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.
4. Section 17(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from selling securities or other property to the investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, from purchasing securities or other property from the investment company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from purchasing or otherwise acquiring any security issued by any other investment company except in accordance with the limitations set forth in that section.
5. Applicants state that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1). Applicants also state that any pledge of securities to secure an Interfund Loan by the borrowing Fund to the lending Fund could constitute a purchase of securities for purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under sections 6(c), 17(b), and 12(d)(1)(J) are satisfied for all the reasons set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) and for the reasons discussed below. Applicants state that the requested relief from section 17(a)(2) of the Act meets the standards of section 6(c) and 17(b) because any collateral pledged to secure an Interfund Loan would be subject to the same conditions imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other circumstance).
6. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid imposing on investors additional and duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investment companies. Applicants submit that the proposed InterFund Program does not involve these abuses. Applicants note that there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or their shareholders, and that each Adviser will receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the InterFund Program. Applicants also note that the purpose of the proposed InterFund Program is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds and their shareholders. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, provided, that immediately after the borrowing, there is asset coverage of at
7. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined Interfund Loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the proposed InterFund Program is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).
8. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the investment company participates, unless, upon application, the transaction has been approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
9. Applicants assert that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and an unfair advantage to insiders. Applicants assert that the InterFund Program is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants assert that each Fund's participation in the proposed InterFund Program would be on terms that are no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Interfund Loan Rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate.
2. On each business day, when an interfund loan is to be made, the InterFund Program Team will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is: (a) More favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate; and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.
3. If a Fund has outstanding Bank Borrowings, any Interfund Loan to the Fund will: (a) Be at an interest rate equal to or lower than the interest rate of any outstanding bank loan; (b) be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral; (c) have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days); and (d) provide that, if an event of default occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default by the Fund, will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the interfund lending agreement which both (i) entitles the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan immediately and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral and (ii) causes the call to be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
4. A Fund may borrow on an unsecured basis through the InterFund Program only if the relevant borrowing Fund's outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets, provided that if the borrowing Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the lending Fund's Interfund Loan will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a borrowing Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an Interfund Loan would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the InterFund Program only on a secured basis. A Fund may not borrow through the InterFund Program or from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after the borrowing would be more than 33
5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, it must first secure each outstanding Interfund Loan to a Fund by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceed 10% of its total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one business day thereafter either: (a) Repay all its outstanding Interfund Loans to other Funds; (b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to other Funds to 10% or less of its total assets; or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan to other Funds by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at which time the collateral called for by this condition 5 shall no longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceed 10% of its total assets is repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to market each day and will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each outstanding Interfund Loan to Funds at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the Interfund Loans.
6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the InterFund Program if the loan would cause the lending Fund's aggregate outstanding loans through the InterFund Program to exceed 15% of its current net assets at the time of the loan.
7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
9. A Fund's borrowings through the InterFund Program, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions for the preceding seven calendar days or 102% of a Fund's sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.
10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
11. A Fund's participation in the InterFund Program must be consistent with its investment restrictions, policies, limitations and organizational documents.
12. The InterFund Program Team will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the InterFund Program, and allocate Interfund Loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention of any portfolio manager. The InterFund Program Team will not solicit cash for the InterFund Program from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The InterFund Program Team will invest all amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the standing instructions of the relevant portfolio manager or such remaining amounts will be invested directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
13. The InterFund Program Team will monitor the Interfund Loan Rate charged and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Boards concerning the participation of the Funds in the InterFund Program and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit under the InterFund Program.
14. Each Board, including a majority of its Independent Board Members, will:
(a) Review, no less frequently than quarterly, the participation of each Fund it oversees in the InterFund Program during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such participation;
(b) establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the interest rate on Interfund Loans;
(c) review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and
(d) review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing appropriateness of the participation in the InterFund Program by each Fund it oversees.
15. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction by it under the InterFund Program occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transaction, including the amount, the maturity and the Interfund Loan Rate, the rate of interest available at the time each Interfund Loan is made on overnight repurchase agreements and Bank Borrowings, and such other information presented to the Boards of the Funds in connection with the review required by conditions 13 and 14.
16. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and the default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the interfund lending agreement, the Adviser to the lending Fund promptly will refer the loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Board of any Fund involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans.
17. The Advisers will prepare and submit to the Board for review an initial report describing the operations of the InterFund Program and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of the InterFund Program, the Advisers will report on the operations of the InterFund Program at each Board's quarterly meetings. Each Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4) under the Act, shall prepare an annual report for its Board each year that the Fund participates in the InterFund Program, that evaluates the Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. Each Fund's chief compliance officer will also annually file a certification pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR as such form may be revised, amended or superseded from time to time, for each year that the Fund participates in the InterFund Program, that certifies that the Fund and its Adviser have implemented procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the order. In particular, such certification will address procedures designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate but lower than the Bank Loan Rate;
(b) compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application;
(c) compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending;
(d) allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the Board; and
(e) that the Interfund Loan Rate does not exceed the interest rate on any third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan.
Additionally, each Fund's independent registered public accountants, in connection with their audit examination of the Fund, will review the operation of the InterFund Program for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.
18. No Fund will participate in the InterFund Program, upon receipt of requisite regulatory approval, unless it has fully disclosed in its registration statement on Form N-1A (or any successor form adopted by the Commission) all material facts about its intended participation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98—Equities to provide that when Designated Market Makers (“DMM”) enter interest for the purpose of facilitating the execution of customer orders, such orders would not be required to be designated as DMM interest. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98—Equities (“Rule 98”) to provide that when DMMs enter interest on a proprietary basis for the purpose of facilitating the execution of customer orders, such orders would not be required to be designated as DMM interest.
In 2014, the Exchange amended Rule 98 to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by a member organization that operates a DMM unit and make conforming changes to other Exchange rules.
Rule 98(c) sets forth specified restrictions to operating a DMM unit.
Rule 98(c)(5) provides that a member organization must provide the Exchange with real-time net position information for trading in DMM securities by the DMM unit and any independent trading unit of which it is a part, at such times and in the manner prescribed by the Exchange. Rule 98(d) further specifies that the DMM rules
Because Rule 98(c)(4) currently requires that any interest entered into Exchange systems by the DMM unit in DMM securities be identifiable as DMM interest, a DMM unit integrated with a customer-facing unit that would send customer orders in DMM securities to the Exchange as proprietary interest must identify it as DMM interest. As a result, although agency orders are not subject to DMM rules, customer-driven interest entered on a proprietary basis is subject to all DMM rules.
To date, none of the member organizations operating a DMM have integrated a DMM unit with a customer-facing trading unit and the Exchange believes that the current rule requiring customer-driven orders that are represented on a proprietary basis be designated as DMM interest has served as a barrier to achieving such integration.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to better reflect how member organizations that integrate DMM unit operations with customer-facing operations may facilitate customer-driven order flow to the Exchange in DMM securities. As noted above, one of the intended goals of the 2014 Filing was to permit member organizations to integrate DMM unit operations with other market-making operations, including customer-facing units. However, as discussed above, subjecting customer order flow that is entered on a proprietary basis to DMM rules may be inconsistent with a member organization's obligations to its customers, and thus continue to serve as a barrier to integrating DMM units within a member organization. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to facilitate better integration of DMM units with a member organization's existing customer-facing market-making trading units by specifying that, as with agency orders, customer-driven orders that are entered on a proprietary basis by the DMM unit would not be required to be designated as DMM interest.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to provide that proprietary interest that is entered by a DMM unit for the purposes of facilitating customer orders would not be required to be designated as DMM interest. The Exchange proposes to replace the phrase “any interest” with the phrase “proprietary interest” in Rule 98(c)(4) to clarify that the existing rule only governs proprietary interest of a DMM unit,
The proposed definition of “customer-driven order” is not a novel concept in that other SROs rules define the concept of a proprietary order being entered to facilitate a customer order. For example, Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA Rule 5320 defines the term “facilitated order” to mean a proprietary trade that is for the purposes of facilitating the execution, on a riskless principal basis, of an order from a customer (whether its own customer or another broker-dealer).
The proposed rule change is designed to reflect how member organizations handle customer orders, which in many circumstances, are routed to an exchange on a proprietary basis to facilitate execution of a customer's order. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the current rule, which does not require agency orders entered by the member organization that operates a DMM unit to be subject to DMM rules.
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 98(c)(4) to specify that a DMM unit must use unique mnemonics that identify to the Exchange its customer-driven orders in DMM securities. Such mnemonics may not be used for trading activity at the Exchange in DMM securities that are not customer-driven orders, but may be used for trading activities in securities not assigned to the DMM. The Exchange believes that requiring a separate mnemonic for customer-driven orders would assist the Exchange in monitoring DMM unit compliance with the proposed rule.
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 98(d) to specify which rules would be applicable to trading by the DMM unit. As proposed, the rules, fees, or credits applicable to DMM quoting or trading activity would apply only to a DMM unit's quoting or trading in its DMM securities for its own account at the Exchange that has been identified as DMM interest. In addition, consistent with the proposal that customer-driven orders would not be required to be designated as DMM interest, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 98(d) to state that customer-driven orders for the account of a DMM unit that have not been identified as DMM interest would not be subject to DMM rules or be eligible for any fees or credits applicable to DMM quoting or trading activity.
The Rule 98(c)(5) obligation to provide the Exchange with real-time net position information in DMM securities would continue to be applicable to the DMM unit's position in DMM securities together with any position of a Regulation SHO independent trading unit of which the DMM unit may be included, regardless of whether they are positions resulting from trades in away markets, trades as a result of DMM interest entered at the Exchange, or customer-driven orders routed to the Exchange that were not identified as DMM interest.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to define the term “customer-driven order” to be proprietary interest of a DMM that is for the purposes of facilitating the execution of an order received from a customer (whether its own customer or the customer of another broker-dealer) on a riskless principal basis or on a principal basis to provide price improvement to the customer reflects the current reality of how broker-dealers facilitate customer orders that are routed to an exchange. Specifically, after receiving a customer order, such customer order is routed to an exchange on a proprietary basis, and once an execution is received from an exchange, the execution is provided to the customer either on a riskless principal basis or with price improvement. Facilitating customer orders on a proprietary basis is not a novel concept and serves as the basis of the definition of the term “facilitated order” in Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA Rule 5320. While the Exchange proposes that customer-driven orders for the purposes of Rule 98 would not be required to be executed only on a riskless principal basis, but could also be executed on a principal basis to provide price improvement to the customer, this difference does not alter the premise of how member organizations facilitate customer orders, as already established in Rule 5320.03. Because the proposed definition is narrowly defined to reflect how customer orders are facilitated on a proprietary basis when routed to an exchange, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 98(c)(4) to define the term “customer-driven order” would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
The Exchange believes that requiring a DMM unit to use unique mnemonics to identify customer-driven orders in DMM securities would promote just and equitable principles of trade because requiring such orders to be entered using unique mnemonics would assist the Exchange in monitoring DMM unit compliance with the proposed rule.
The Exchange further believes that providing DMM units with a choice of whether to designate a customer-driven order as DMM interest would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because certain DMM rules may conflict with a broker-dealer's obligation to its customers. As discussed in the 2014 Filing, agency orders entered by a member organization that operates a DMM unit are not subject to DMM rules.
The proposed rule change would further be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would enable customer-driven orders to not be subject to DMM rules and eliminate any conflict with customer instructions or best execution obligations. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change would not alter in any way a member organization's existing obligations under Section 15(g) of the Act,
The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 98(d) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by promoting transparency in Exchange rules regarding which rules, fees or credits applicable to DMM quoting or trading activity would be applicable to which interest. More specifically, the Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 98(c)(5) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by removing extraneous rule text, thus promoting simplicity in Exchange rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to be pro-competitive because it would remove a restriction unique to DMMs as specified in Rule 98, thus enabling existing customer-facing market making units to operate as a DMM unit at the Exchange without needing to change the manner by which they may facilitate customer orders on a proprietary basis at an exchange. The proposed rule change would also harmonize the Exchange's rules with recently approved amendments to NYSE Rule 98.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to make a clarifying change regarding the rebate program recently implemented by the Exchange for the NYSE Bonds
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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to make a clarifying change regarding the rebate program recently implemented by the Exchange for the NYSE Bonds system.
Pursuant to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program, a voluntary rebate program, the Exchange pays Users
The rebate amount is tiered based on the number of CUSIPs quoted by a User, as follows:
To qualify for a rebate, a User is required to provide continuous two-sided quotes for at least eighty percent (80%) of the time during the Core Bond Trading Session for an entire calendar month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to clarify the application of its rebate program and therefore reduce confusion in the application of the Exchange's Price List. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4269-DR), dated 04/25/2016.
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.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 04/25/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated 05/10/2016.
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 14719 5 and for economic injury is 14720 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is New York.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of IDAHO, dated 05/09/2016.
Incident: Landslide and State Highway 14 Closure.
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 EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 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 economic injury is 147160.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Idaho, Montana, Oregon.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of public availability of FY 2015 Service Contract inventories.
In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), we are publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2015 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on FY 2015 service contract actions over $25,000. We organized the information by function to show how we distribute contracted resources throughout the agency. We developed the inventory in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Maria Radvansky, Office of Budget, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
Pursuant to section 7058(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235) and the authority delegated to her by the Secretary of State under Delegation of Authority 245-1, notice is hereby given that, on April 5, 2016, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom has determined that an international outbreak of the Zika virus is sustained, severe, and is spreading internationally, and that it is in the national interest to respond to the related Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Aditi Nigam, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-4029,
Section 7058(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, P.L. 113-235) provides that:
If the Secretary of State determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that an international infectious disease outbreak is sustained, severe, and is spreading internationally, or that it is in the national interest to respond to a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, funds made available under title III of this Act may be made available to combat such infectious disease or public health emergency: Provided, That funds made available pursuant to the authority of this subsection shall be subject to prior consultation with, and the regular notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.
Exercising this authority with respect to the Zika virus outbreak allows funds made available in the bilateral economic assistance accounts in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 to be used to respond to the Zika outbreak.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to June 16, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Stacey May, U.S. Department of State, DRL/EAP Suite 7817, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202-647-8260 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Section 203(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President authority to, inter alia, prevent or prohibit any acquisition or transaction involving any property, in which a foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
In Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 1997, the President determined that the actions and policies of the Government
In response to several political reforms by the Government of Burma and pursuant to authority granted by IEEPA, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a general license (GL 17) on July 11, 2012 authorizing new investment in Burma, subject to certain restrictions and conditions.
In order to support the Department of State's efforts to assess the extent to which new U.S. investment authorized by GL 17 furthers U.S. foreign policy goals of improving human rights protections and facilitating political reform in Burma, GL 17 requires U.S. persons engaging in new investment in Burma to report to the Department of State information related to such investment, as laid out in the “Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma,” (hereafter referred to as the “collection”). This collection is authorized by section 203(a)(2) of IEEPA, which grants the President authority to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in section 203(a)(1) of IEEPA.
The Department of State will collect the information requested via electronic submission.
It is the overarching policy goal of the U.S. Government to support political reform in Burma towards the establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic state that respects human rights and the rule of law. In the past, some foreign investment in Burma has been linked to human rights abuses, particularly in the area of natural resource development in ethnic minority regions. For example, some foreign investments have entailed acquisition and control of land in disputed ethnic minority territories exacerbating or contributing to both social unrest and armed conflict and leading to adverse community and/or environmental impacts. Increased military/security presence, particularly in disputed ethnic minority areas, to provide security for foreign investment projects is reported to have led to seizures of farm land, involuntary relocations, forced labor, torture, summary execution, and sexual violence.
The collection will help the Department of State, in consultation with other relevant government agencies, to evaluate whether easing the ban on investment by U.S. persons advances U.S. foreign policy goals to address the national emergency with respect to Burma. In addition, the Department of State will use the collection as a basis to conduct informed consultations with U.S. businesses to encourage and assist such businesses to develop robust policies and procedures to address any potential adverse human rights, worker rights, anti-corruption, environmental, or other impacts resulting from their investments and operations in Burma. The Department of State will use the collection of information about new investment with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) to track investment that involves MOGE and to identify investors with whom it may be beneficial to have targeted consultation on anti-corruption and human rights policies. The public, including civil society actors in Burma, may use publicly available information resulting from the collection to engage U.S. businesses on their responsible investment policies and procedures and to monitor the Burmese government's management of revenues from investment.
U.S. persons to whom this requirement applies will be required to submit a version of the report to the U.S. Government for public release, from which information considered in good faith to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4—
Burmese civil society groups, particularly those representing ethnic minority communities, have requested that the Department of State make public certain information obtained through the collection on investments purportedly made for the benefit of the Burmese people, as a means of holding their own government accountable. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of Burma's democratic opposition party and recently elected to a seat in Burma's parliament, also underscored the importance of transparency in her recent remarks in Bangkok, noting that she did not want “more investment to mean more possibilities for corruption.” This was among the most specific of the recommendations she made to the international community, stressing that “Transparency is very important if we are going to avoid problems in the future . . . So whatever investments, governmental agreements, whatever aid might be proposed, please make sure that it is transparent, that the people of Burma are in a position to understand what has been done, and how and for whom the benefits are intended.”
Therefore public release of portions of this collection is aimed at providing civil society this type of information to both ensure the transparency of U.S. investment in Burma and to encourage civil society to partner with their government and U.S. companies towards building responsible investment, which ultimately promotes U.S. foreign policy goals.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to July 18, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice to: Steve Derscheid—PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112, who may be reached via email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The export, temporary import, and brokering of defense articles, defense services, and related technical data are licensed by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) in accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR,” 22 CFR parts 120-130) and section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act.
ITAR § 126.18 eliminates, subject to certain conditions, the requirement for an approval by DDTC of the transfer of unclassified defense articles, which includes technical data, to or within a foreign business entity, foreign governmental entity, or international organization that is an authorized end-user or consignee (including transfers to approved sub-licensees) for defense articles, including the transfer to dual nationals or third-country nationals who are bona fide regular employees directly employed by the foreign consignee or end-user.
To use ITAR § 126.18, effective procedures must be in place to prevent diversion to any destination, entity, or for purposes other than those authorized by the applicable export license or other authorization. Those conditions can be met by requiring a security clearance approved by the host nation government for its employees, or the end-user or consignee have in place a process to screen all its employees and to have executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement that provides assurances that the employee will not transfer any defense articles to persons or entities unless specifically authorized by the consignee or end-user. ITAR § 126.18(c)(2) also provides that the technology security/clearance plans and screening records shall be made available to DDTC or its agents for law enforcement purposes upon request.
When information kept on file pursuant to this recordkeeping requirement is required to be sent to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, it may be sent electronically or by mail according to guidance given by DDTC.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to July 18, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L, 44132 Mercure Cir., P.O. Box 1227, Sterling, VA 20166-1227, or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information collected on the DS-82 is used to facilitate the issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and nationals. The primary purpose of soliciting the information is to establish citizenship, identity, and entitlement to the issuance of the U.S. passport or related service, and to properly administer and enforce the laws pertaining to the issuance thereof.
The DS-82 solicits data necessary for Passport Services to issue a United States passport (book and/or card format) in the exercise of authorities granted to the Secretary of State in 22 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 211a
The issuance of U.S. passports requires the determination of identity, nationality, and entitlement, with reference to the provisions of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1401-1504), the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, other applicable treaties and laws and implementing regulations at 22 CFR part 50 and 51. The specific regulations pertaining to the Application for a U.S. Passport by Mail are at 22 CFR 51.20 and 51.21
Passport Services collects information from U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals who complete and submit the U.S. Passport Renewal Application. Passport applicants can either download the DS-82 from the internet or obtain one from an Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and submitted along with the applicant's previous U.S. passport.
U.S. citizens overseas may download the DS-82 from the Internet or obtain one from the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, along with the procedures to be followed when applying overseas.
The Privacy Act statement has been amended to clarify that an applicant's failure to provide his or her Social Security number may result in the denial of an application, consistent with section 32101 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94), which authorizes the Department to deny U.S. passport applications when the applicant failed to include his or her Social Security number. It also makes clear that failure to include one's Social Security number may also subject the applicant to a penalty enforced by the International Revenue Service. These requirements and the underlying legal authorities are further described on page 3 of the instructions titled “Federal Tax Law” which has also been amended to include a reference to Public Law 114-94.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments; withdrawal.
This action withdraws the Notice to collect information to process and report Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) airborne and ground based observations by the public of drone behavior that they consider suspicious or illegal. The document contained errors, and needs further clarification.
May 17, 2016.
Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, by phone at (202) 267-1416, or by email at
The FAA published in the
In consideration of the foregoing, the Notice and request for comments as published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 34 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles and equipment on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S.
The effective date of the waiver is May 18, 2016.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, telephone 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 34 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles (including sedans, vans, pickups, trucks, buses, and street sweepers) and equipment (such as trail grooming equipment) on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S. The waiver would apply to approximately 2,528 vehicles and equipment acquisitions. The requests for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2015, available at
Title 23, section 635.410, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 635.410) requires that steel or iron materials (including protective coatings) that will be permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid project must be manufactured in the U.S. For FHWA, this means that all the processes that modified the chemical content, physical shape or size, or final finish of the material (from initial melting and mixing, continuing through the bending and coating) occurred in the U.S. The statute and regulations create a process for granting waivers from the Buy America requirements when its application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available.
In 1983, FHWA determined that it was both in the public interest and consistent with the legislative intent to waive Buy America for manufactured products other than steel manufactured products. However, FHWA's national waiver for manufactured products does not apply to the requests in this notice because they involve predominately steel and iron manufactured products. The FHWA's Buy America requirements do not have special provisions for applying Buy America to “rolling stock” such as vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of Buy America rolling stock provisions for other DOT agencies).
Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers that produce the vehicles and vehicle components identified in this notice in such a way that their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically. The FHWA's Buy America requirements were tailored to the types of products that are typically used in highway construction, which generally meet the requirement that steel and iron materials be manufactured domestically. In today's global industry, vehicles are assembled with iron and steel components that are manufactured all over the world. The FHWA is not aware of any domestically produced vehicle on the market that meets FHWA's Buy America requirement to have all its iron and steel be manufactured exclusively in the U.S. For example, the Chevrolet Volt, which was identified by many commenters in a November 21, 2011,
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its Web site at
Based on FHWA's conclusion that there are no domestic manufacturers that can produce the vehicles and equipment identified in this notice in such a way that steel and iron materials are manufactured domestically, and after consideration of the comments received, FHWA finds that application of FHWA's Buy America requirements to these products is inconsistent with the public interest (23 U.S.C. 313(b)(1) and 23 CFR 635.410(c)(2)(i)).
However, FHWA believes that it is in the public interest and consistent with the Buy America requirements to impose the condition that the vehicles and the vehicle components be assembled in the U.S. Requiring final assembly to be performed in the U.S. is consistent with past guidance to FHWA Division Offices on manufactured products (see Memorandum on Buy America Policy Response, December 22,
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice of its finding that a public interest waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate on the condition that the vehicles and equipment identified in the notice be assembled in the U.S. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; PL 110-161; 23 CFR 635.410.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the use of non-domestic motor and machinery brakes (maximum torque 100 ft-lb, wheel size 8 inches) for the rehabilitation of a bascule bridge in Port Clinton, Ohio.
The effective date of the waiver is May 18, 2016.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
The FHWA's Buy America policy in 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic manufacturing process for any steel or iron products (including protective coatings) that are permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid construction project. The regulation also provides for a waiver of the Buy America requirements when the application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for use of non-domestic motor and machinery brake systems (maximum torque 100 ft-lb, wheel size 8 inches) for rehabilitation of a bascule bridge in Port Clinton, Ohio.
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its Web site
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice that a waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Public Law 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed Buy America waiver and request for comment.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) received a formal request from the Pace Suburban Bus Division of the Regional Transportation Authority (Pace) for a Buy America non-availability waiver to purchase 188 Dodge Caravan minivans for its vanpool program. Minivans are considered rolling stock and are subject to the Buy America waiver set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), which requires that minivans (i) contain more than 60 percent domestic content, and (ii) final assembly of the vehicles occurs in the United States. Although initially Pace sought only a waiver of the requirement that final assembly take place in the United States, Pace now seeks a waiver of both requirements. Because FTA is aware of at least four manufacturers that can meet the final assembly requirement, however, FTA is proposing a waiver of only the domestic content requirement for non-ADA-accessible minivans. This waiver would apply to all procurements of non-ADA-accessible minivans by any FTA grantee and would be limited to contracts entered into before September 30, 2019 or until a fully compliant domestic source becomes available, whichever is earlier. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A), FTA is providing notice of this proposed waiver and seeks public and industry comment on whether FTA should grant the waiver.
Comments must be received by May 31, 2016. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Please submit your comments by one of the following means, identifying your submissions by docket number FTA-2016-0025:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Laura Ames, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 366-2743 or
By way of background, Pace operates a vanpool program in the Chicago suburban area with more than 785 vehicles in service. A vanpool vehicle is defined, in pertinent part, as a vehicle with a seating capacity of at least six adults (not including the driver).
In October 2014, Pace issued an invitation for bid (IFB) for a five-year contract for the purchase of seven-person minivans. The successful bidder, Napoleon Fleet, Inc., proposed providing Chrysler Dodge Caravan minivans, but certified that the vehicles were not compliant with the Buy America requirement that the vehicles be assembled in the United States. Chrysler manufactures its minivans in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. On April 15, 2015, Pace requested a Buy America non-availability waiver for the procurement of 188 Dodge Caravan minivans based on the final assembly requirement only. Pace believed that the vehicles it proposed to purchase met the domestic content requirement.
In August 2015 and November 2015, Pace conducted pre-award Buy America audits of the Dodge Caravan minivans and discovered that Chrysler did not meet the current domestic content requirement of more than 60%. Pace notified FTA that the audit showed a 57.4% domestic content for 2015 minivans and only 52% domestic content for 2016 minivans. Pace, therefore, is requesting a waiver on the grounds that a seven-person minivan that complies with Buy America's domestic content and final assembly requirements is not available.
In addition to the request from Pace, FTA has received inquiries from other grantees and manufacturers about the asserted non-availability of minivans for their vanpool fleet that meet both requirements of Buy America. Therefore, FTA proposes to grant a general Buy America waiver from the domestic content requirement for non-ADA-accessible minivans procured pursuant to contracts entered into before September 30, 2019, or until a fully-compliant domestic source becomes available, whichever is earlier.
With certain exceptions, FTA's Buy America statute prevents FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1). A manufactured product is considered produced in the United States if: (1) All of the manufacturing processes for the product must take place in the United States; and (2) All of the components of the product must be of U.S. origin. A component is considered of U.S. origin if it is manufactured in the United States, regardless of the origin of its subcomponents. 49 CFR 661.5(d). If, however, FTA determines that “the steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality,” then FTA may issue a waiver (non-availability waiver). 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B); 49 CFR 661.7(c).
The requirement that manufactured goods be produced in the United State may be waived for rolling stock if (i) the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 is more than 60 percent of the cost of all components of the rolling stock; and (ii) final assembly of the rolling stock occurs in the United States.
FTA funds the procurement of between 2,500 and 3,000 minivans annually, including both ADA-accessible vans and non-ADA-accessible vans. The challenges associated with buying minivans that comply with FTA's Buy America statute and regulations have been well documented over the past six years. In 2010, El Dorado National, Kansas and Chrysler Group LLC petitioned FTA for a waiver of the Buy America final assembly requirement. In response to the request FTA published a notice in the
On November 27, 2012, FTA rescinded the non-availability waiver for minivans, finding that the manufacturer of the MV-1 was a domestic manufacturer of eligible paratransit vehicles and could meet both the domestic content and the final assembly requirements for rolling stock under Buy America.
On November 27, 2013, FTA issued a one-time, limited Buy America waiver of the final assembly requirement to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), for the purchase of 25 seven-passenger minivans, based upon non-availability.
The market for non-ADA accessible minivans has changed since 2013. In 2013, the Chrysler minivan met the domestic content requirements but was not assembled in the United States. FTA issued a non-availability waiver for final assembly because more than 60 percent of the minivan's components were produced in the United States. Today, Chrysler does not meet either Buy America requirements. However, there are at least four manufacturers—GMC, Ford, Honda and Toyota—that make non-ADA-accessible minivans that are assembled in the U.S.
Because there are at least four minivans manufacturers who assemble their vehicles in the United States, FTA will not grant Pace a non-availability waiver for both final assembly and domestic content. Instead, in order to maintain U.S. jobs and obtain the benefits of the Buy America statute, FTA proposes to grant a general waiver of only the domestic content requirement for non-ADA-accessible minivans. This waiver would apply to all procurements of non-ADA-accessible minivans and is limited to contracts entered into before September 30, 2019 or until a fully-compliant domestic source becomes available, whichever is earlier. Because the non-ADA-accessible minivans are production line vehicles sold to the general public (
This waiver would not apply to ADA-accessible minivans because such vehicles are available that meet the Buy America requirements.
FTA is publishing this Notice to seek public and industry comment from all interested parties in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(3)(A). Such information and comments will help FTA understand completely the facts surrounding the request, including the merits of the request. A full copy of the request has been placed in docket number FTA-2016-0025.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Safety Advisory.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued Safety Advisory 16-2 regarding contact rail system hazards on rail fixed guideway public transportation systems (RFGPTSs). A letter to the Managers of State Safety Oversight (SSO) programs with RFGPTSs that use a contact rail system, was also issued requesting data and information on contact rail system hazards occurring during calendar year 2015. Safety Advisory 16-2 and the accompanying letter are available in their entirety on the FTA public Web site at
FTA is asking the managers of the SSO programs to submit the requested data and information 90 days from issuance of the advisory.
For program matters, Sam Shelton, Office of System Safety, telephone (202) 366-0815 or
Nationwide, 13 RFGPTS operate and maintain contact rail traction power electrification (TPE) systems to power trains that move millions of daily passengers in some of the nation's largest cities. Recently, the FTA has investigated several safety events related to failures of contact rail TPE systems, including:
• Smoke events caused by arcing insulators and traction power cable fires;
• An explosion caused by a flashover on porcelain insulators;
• A high-intensity fire caused by an electrical short circuit that resulted in the total loss of a traction power substation and major service disruptions;
• Damage to electrical propulsion equipment on dozens of railcars caused by spiking voltage that significantly impacted passenger service; and
• Poor track conditions exacerbated by electrolysis and corrosion from stray current, which degraded anchor bolts and fasteners to the point of failure in a tunnel.
The FTA finds sufficient evidence that each SSOA with an RFGPTS operating and maintaining a contact rail TPE system should investigate potential hazards associated with these systems through its hazard management program specified at 49 CFR 659.31. Further, in accordance with its authority at 49 CFR 659.39(d) to periodically request program information from the SSOAs,
(1) A brief description of the RFGPTS contact rail TPE system and components.
(2) A brief description regarding any major changes or upgrades to the contact rail TPE system made over the last 10 years and whether the traction power cables were also upgraded.
(3) A brief description of the RFGPTS preventive maintenance program in place to determine the insulation integrity of traction power feeder cables (
(4) The approximate percentage of traction power feeder cables used by the RFGPTS that are low smoke and zero halogen emission cables. Please specify the type and manufacturer.
(5) A brief description of the construction and installation processes used to manage potential impacts of vibration, friction, rubbing, etc. on traction power cables, and whether protective matting is used for cables lying along the ballast and tunnel invert.
(6) A listing of any corrective action plans (CAPs) required and approved by the SSOA related to the traction power electrification system since calendar year 2012 and their status, to include both open and closed CAPs.
(7) A copy of the RFGPTS inspection, testing, and maintenance program manual for its contact rail TPE system.
(8) The RFGPTS definition of “arcing insulator.”
(9) The following safety event information for calendar year 2015:
a. The total number of times a fire department responded to smoke conditions at the RFGPTS related to the contact rail TPE system;
b. The total number of smoke/fire events related to the contact rail TPE system that resulted in evacuations for fire/life safety reasons at the RFGPTS; and
c. The total number of fatalities and injuries and the total amount of property damage at the RFGPTS resulting from smoke/fire events related to the contact rail TPE system.
(10) A description of any hazards, issues, or concerns related to the contact rail TPE system reported to, identified and/or investigated by the SSOA during calendar year 2015.
The cooperation of the rail transit industry would be very helpful in developing a better understanding of contact rail system hazards, and in due course, a strategy for mitigating the safety risks created by these hazards.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Request for comments.
FTA is inviting the public to evaluate and provide comments on its Compendium of transit safety standards and protocols. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a review of public transportation safety standards and protocols to document existing standards and protocols and examine their efficacy. Following the review, the Secretary also is required to engage with the public in an evaluation of the standards to assess the need to establish additional Federal minimum public transportation safety standards. Upon completion of the review and evaluation, the Secretary must issue a report presenting the findings of the review of standards; the outcome of the evaluation; a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the safety of the public transportation industry, including recommendations for regulatory changes, if applicable; and actions that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation will take to address the recommendations provided.
Comments must be submitted by June 16, 2016. Comments filed after the deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods, identifying your submission by Docket Number (FTA-2016-0024).
•
•
•
•
For program matters, contact Brian Alberts, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-1783 or
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Section 3020 of the FAST Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a review of public transportation safety standards and protocols to assess the efficacy of those standards and protocols. The content of the review must include minimum safety performance standards developed by the public transportation industry and safety performance standards, practices, or protocols in use by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems. The review also must include rail and bus safety standards, practices, or protocols in use by public transportation systems regarding (1) rail and bus design and the workstation of rail and bus operators, (2) scheduling fixed route rail and bus service with adequate time and access for operators to use restroom facilities, (3) fatigue management, (4) and crash avoidance and worthiness. Section 3020(b) of the FAST Act requires the Secretary to conduct an evaluation following the review in consultation with the public transportation industry to assess the need to establish additional Federal minimum public transportation safety standards.
FTA has placed in the docket and on FTA's Web site its review of public transportation safety standards and protocols contained as a “Compendium of Public Transportation Safety Standards” (Compendium) provided in tabular format. Included within this Compendium are standards for all public transportation modes (where available), including commuter rail and ferry boat, modes for which regulatory oversight rests within another DOT modal administration. FTA seeks comments from the public transportation industry on the utilization of the standards contained within the Compendium, observations or data driven statements of the effectiveness of the standards, and areas
The Compendium includes those standards or protocols applicable to or used in those transit modes referenced in the National Transit Database, including: Rail Transit (Alaska Railroad, Cable Car, Commuter Rail, Heavy Rail, Hybrid Rail, Inclined Plan, Light Rail, Monorail/Automated Guideway, and Streetcar) and Non-Rail Transit (Aerial Tramway; Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Commuter Bus, Demand Response, Demand Response Taxi, Ferryboat, Jitney, Público, Trolleybus, and Vanpool).
The Compendium identifies state and Federal regulations, minimum safety performance standards that have been developed by the public transportation industry (within modes described above), as well as those specific standards or protocols in use by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, including those related to emergency plans and procedures for passenger evacuations, training programs that ensure personnel compliance and readiness in emergency situations, and coordination plans with emergency responders.
The Compendium is a single Excel file with individual tabs within the workbook titled “bus,” “rail,” “other modes,” “and all modes” to aid in the review of the standards presented. Within each of these tabs, standards are presented alphabetically by specific source. As an example, standards and recommended practices from APTA would appear first and standards from “States” would be presented last. The Compendium is further organized by a series of worksheet column headings that include the title of the standard, and the type of standard and standard sub and sub-function categories, further defined below. The standard development entity, whether a Federal agency, Standard Development Organization (SDO), State, State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA), or specific industry association is also identified. Hyperlinks to specific standards, protocols, and classification content are provided in the Compendium to allow an opportunity for a thorough review of those standards and protocols.
The “standard types” used in the Compendium include those standards and protocols related to vehicle standards (including performance), infrastructure and related items, operational standards, personnel (including operator and fatigue management), State of Good Repair (SGR), emergency/incident management, and training and certifications. Each of these standard types is presented below with associated standard sub categories.
If a state or industry organization adopts a Federal regulation by reference or a standard developed by a standard development organization, this regulation or standard is not reflected in the section of the Compendium specific to that state or organization, but rather is included within the list of standards from the source Federal regulatory body or standard development organization.
FTA seeks specific comments, and any related statements or observations, to the following questions.
1. Are there standards in place for your system that are not reflected in the Compendium?
2. Are the standards utilized within your system, but not listed in the Compendium mandated or promulgated by a Federal or State agency, State Safety Oversight Agency, regional regulatory body, or other entity? If so, what are they?
3. What observations or data driven statements can you provide stating or documenting the effectiveness of the standards included in the Compendium (or those in place for your system, but not reflected in the Compendium)?
4. Based on your experiences or safety-related trends at your agency, are there areas of concern for which standards should be established by FTA through subsequent rulemaking activity? If so, what are they?
5. Are there specific transit modes and associated areas of risk that should be areas of focus for FTA more than others? If so, what are they?
6. If standards were established based on various determinants of risk, how should those areas of risk be prioritized? Should standards be established based on exposure rates (passenger/vehicle miles), number or rate of injuries, or number or rate of fatalities, as examples?
7. Are there any safety standards utilized in the public transportation industry that are not reflected in the Compendium nor in place within your agency that should be included in the Compendium? If so, what are they?
8. Are you aware of safety standards utilized in other industries that should be examined? If so, what are they?
9. FTA was unable to identify any standards or protocols relates to the following topics:
• Reduce blind spots,
• protect rail and bus operators from assaults, and
• allow sufficient time within route schedules for operators to use restroom facilities.
Are you aware of any existing safety standards or protocols that may address any of these areas of risk? If so, please identify each standard or protocol by its reference and source and provide information you may have related to the efficacy of such standard or protocol.
Comments received will be included in FTA's ongoing evaluation of safety standards and the effectiveness of those standards and will be reflected in the report issued in accordance with Section 3020(c) of the FAST Act.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2016.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Dr. Kristie Johnson, 202-366-2755.
• Their background, including job roles and responsibilities, which provide context for document use,
• What are their key information needs for the
• Opinions on the documents' structure, format, and content, which includes using a consistent question format for different information items/sections in the document,
• Opinions about specific aspects and potential changes or improvements pertaining to examples of alternative presentation formats,
• Opinions about how the Countermeasures At Work guide would be used, what information should be included, and if stakeholders have information about good locality examples, and
• Opinions about features or topics that should be included both guides, such as the addition of figures and illustrations, and adjustments to the design of topic subsections.
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Chrysler Group, LLC (Chrysler), a wholly owned subsidiary of Fiat S.p.A., has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014 RAM 2500 and RAM 3500 trucks do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
For further information on this decision contact Stuart Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
Notice of receipt of Chrysler's petition was published, with a 30-Day public comment period, on August 25, 2014 in the
Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires in pertinent part:
S5.3 Each vehicle shall show the information specified in S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 and, in the case of a vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire, the information specified in S5.3.3, in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the format set forth following this paragraph. This information shall appear either—
(a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label required by § 567.4 or § 567.5 of this chapter; or at the option of the manufacturer,
(b) On the tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the manner, location, and form described in § 567.4(b) through (f) of this chapter as appropriate of each GVWR=GAWR combination listed on the certification label.
S5.3.1
S5.3.2.
1. Tire size and pressure information is located on the Tire Inflation Pressure label which is located in the same door opening as the certification label.
a. Certification label is located on the driver door.
b. Tire placard is located on the forward edge of the driver's B-pillar.
2. Tire size and inflation pressure can be found on each tire.
3. Tire and rim information can be found in the vehicle owner's manual.
4. Rim/wheel size can be derived using the tire information printed on the Tire Inflation Pressure label or the tire sidewall information.
5. Chrysler mentioned that in a previous similar petition the agency stated, “that this noncompliance will not have an adverse effect on vehicle safety. Since rim size and type information are marked on the wheels of the vehicles, and the rim diameter can be determined from the tire size on the placard attached to some of the vehicles, the information needed to ensure that the vehicles are equipped with the proper rims and compatible tires is readily available to potential users.”
6. Chrysler is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims or any incidents or injuries related to the subject condition.
7. Chrysler also stated its belief that NHTSA has previously granted petition similar in nature.
With respect to the incorrect statement used to indicate that vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal Standards Chrysler states that the purpose of the statement is to communicate to a reader that a vehicle is both certified and meets applicable safety standards. The vehicles in question meet and/or exceed all applicable FMVSS required for sale in the United States.
Chrysler has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliances so that all future production of these vehicles will fully comply with FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120.
In summation, Chrysler believes that the described noncompliances of the subject vehicles are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
Chrysler noted that the certification label attached to the subject vehicles, required by 49 CFR part 567, does not include the correct required statement of certification. The use of the incorrect certification statement on the certification labels is considered a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30115,
Second, the affected vehicles (approximately 285 RAM 2500 and 3500 trucks) must comply with either FMVSS No. 110 or FMVSS No. 120 depending on the GVWR. The vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less do not comply with paragraph S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 which requires that the rim size designation appear on the certification label for vehicles other than passenger cars. Likewise, the vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, do not comply with paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 which requires that the rim size designation appear on the certification label or at the manufacture's option on a separate tire information label.
For all affected vehicles, the rim size information can be found in the vehicle's owner's manual or on the rim itself, and the tire size information is available from multiple sources including the owner's manual, the sidewalls of the tires on the vehicle and on the tire placard or information label located on the door or door opening. The rim size can be derived using this tire information. In addition, according
NHTSA considers both the Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks to be light duty work trucks that are primarily used by operators experienced with and knowledgeable of their vehicles. It is highly likely that these individuals will readily be able to determine the correct rim sizing if necessary.
Therefore, although the rim size was omitted from the certification labels, the information needed to ensure that the vehicles are equipped with the proper rims and compatible tires is readily available to potential users.
Accordingly, Chrysler's petition is hereby moot in part and granted in part and Chrysler is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Chrysler no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve Chrysler distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Chrysler notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces that the Department of the Treasury's Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (“Committee”) will convene a meeting on Wednesday, June 1, 2016, in Room 4121, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, from 10:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is open to the public, and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 1, 2016, from 10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms meeting will be held in Room 4121, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220. The meeting will be open to the public. Because the meeting will be held in a secured facility, members of the public who plan to attend the meeting must either:
1. Register online. Attendees may visit
Online registration will close at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 26, 2016.
2. Contact the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), at (202) 622-5892, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 26, 2016, and provide registration information.
Requests for reasonable accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act should be directed to Marcia Wilson, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, Department of the Treasury at (202) 622-8177, or
Brett D. Hewitt, Policy Advisor, FIO, Room 1410, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-5892 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150.
• Send electronic comments to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms, Room 1410, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department of the Treasury will post all statements on its Web site
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before June 16, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Federal Advisory Committee Act, 38 U.S.C. App. 2 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held on June 22-23, 2016, in the National Cemetery Administration's training room 104 at 1100 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits.
On June 22, the Committee will receive mandatory training from the Office of General Counsel in the morning and updates on VA and National Cemetery Administration (NCA) issues by appropriate VA staff. On the morning of June 23, the Committee will receive background information on NCA projects and updates from ex-officio members.
Time will be allocated on both June 22 and June 23 to receive public comments at 1:00 p.m. Public comments are limited to three minutes each.
Members of the public may direct questions or submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Ms. Robin Cooper, Designated Federal Officer, VA, NCA (43A2), 1100 1st Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, or via email at
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Commission believes that the regulatory data infrastructure on which the SROs and the Commission currently must rely generally is outdated and inadequate to effectively oversee a complex, dispersed, and highly automated national market system. In performing their oversight responsibilities, regulators today must
Currently, FINRA and some of the exchanges maintain their own separate audit trail systems for certain segments of this trading activity, which vary in scope, required data elements and format. In performing their market oversight responsibilities, SRO and Commission Staffs today must rely heavily on data from these various SRO audit trails. However, as noted in Section IV.D below, there are shortcomings in the completeness, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of these existing audit trail systems. Some of these shortcomings are a result of the disparate nature of the systems, which make it impractical, for example, to follow orders through their entire lifecycle as they may be routed, aggregated, re-routed, and disaggregated across multiple markets. The lack of key information in the audit trails that would be useful for regulatory oversight, such as the identity of the customers who originate orders, or even the fact that two sets of orders may have been originated by the same customer, is another shortcoming.
Though SRO and Commission Staff also have access to sources of market activity data other than SRO audit trails, these systems each suffer their own drawbacks. For example, data obtained from the electronic blue sheet (“EBS”)
Recognizing these shortcomings, on July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Act.
The SROs also submitted a separate NMS plan and an exemptive request letter related to the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, on September 3, 2013, the SROs filed an NMS Plan pursuant to Rule 608 governing the SROs' review, evaluation, and ultimate selection of the Plan Processor
As described further in this Section III of this Notice, the SROs propose to conduct the activities of the CAT through CAT NMS, LLC, a jointly owned limited liability company formed under Delaware state law; and to that end, the SROs submitted the CAT NMS, LLC's limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”), including exhibits and appendices attached thereto, to the Commission as the CAT NMS Plan. The SROs also submitted a cover letter that included a description of the CAT NMS Plan, along with the information required by Rule 608(a)(4) and (5) under the Act,
The LLC Agreement, attached hereto as
In Appendix C to the LLC Agreement, the SROs address the considerations listed in Rule 613(a)(1), providing information and analysis regarding the specific features, details, costs, and processes related to the CAT NMS Plan. Appendix D to the LLC Agreement provides an outline of the CAT's minimum functional and technical requirements for the Plan Processor.
The following statement of purpose provided herein is substantially as prepared and submitted by the SROs to the Commission.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613
Since the adoption of Rule 613, the Participants have worked to formulate an effective Plan. To this end, the Participants have, among other things, developed a plan for selecting the Plan Processor, solicited and evaluated Bids, and engaged diverse industry participants in the development of the Plan. Throughout, the Participants have sought to implement a process that is fair, transparent, and consistent with the standards and considerations in Rule 613.
On February 26, 2013, the Participants published a request for proposal (“RFP”) soliciting Bids from parties interested in serving as the Plan Processor.