Commodity Credit Corporation
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Coast Guard
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Parole Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 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.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending its regulations concerning Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement to incorporate statutory changes to section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) that went into effect when the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill) was signed into law on February 7, 2014.
This rule is effective July 15, 2015.
Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
USDA is amending 7 CFR part 3201 to incorporate statutory changes to section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act made by enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 on February 7, 2014.
USDA is amending 7 CFR 3201.2 by revising one definition and adding two new definitions for terms that are used in the Guidelines as a result of revisions to section 9002 made by the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA is revising the definition of “biobased product” to state that the term includes forest products that meet biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether the market for the product is new or emerging.
USDA is adding definitions for the terms “forest product” and “renewable chemical.” These terms were defined in the text of the 2014 Farm Bill and USDA is proposing to add them verbatim to the BioPreferred Program Guidelines.
USDA is also deleting the current definition of “forestry materials” from section 3201.2. USDA is deleting the existing definition of the term “forestry materials” because the newly defined term “forest product” is more appropriate and, thus, will generally replace the existing term.
USDA is also adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to section 3201.4 to require federal agencies to report the quantities and types of biobased products purchased. This new paragraph responds to specific language included in the 2014 Farm Bill and is intended to provide a means by which the effectiveness of the BioPreferred Program can be measured.
USDA is also adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to section 3201.4 “Procurement programs.” This new paragraph adds the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that federal procuring agencies establish a targeted biobased-only procurement requirement under which the procuring agency must issue a certain number of biobased-only contracts when the agency is purchasing products, or purchasing services that include the use of products, that are included in a biobased product category designated by the Secretary.
USDA is also adding paragraphs to section 3201.5 “Category designation” to expand the description of the procedures and considerations for designating product categories, including those product categories that were excluded from the BioPreferred Program under the previous mature market products exclusion. The Conference Report on the 2014 Farm Bill states: “It is the Managers' intention that all products in the program use innovative approaches in the growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of the biobased product.” USDA is, therefore, incorporating criteria to be used when evaluating whether biobased products meet the requirement to use “innovative approaches.”
The Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement (the Guidelines) are established under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), and further amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), 7 U.S.C. 8102. (Section 9002 of the 2002 Farm Bill, as amended by the 2008 and the 2014 Farm Bills, is referred to in this document as “section 9002”).
As originally enacted, section 9002 provides for the preferred procurement of biobased products by federal agencies. USDA proposed the Guidelines for implementing this preferred procurement program on December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70730–70746). The Guidelines were promulgated on January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1792), and are contained in 7 CFR part 3201, “Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement.”
The Guidelines identify various procedures federal agencies are required to follow in implementing the requirements of section 9002. They were modeled in part on the “Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Products Containing Recovered Materials” (40 CFR part 247), which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued pursuant to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 40 U.S.C. 6962.
On June 18, 2008, the 2008 Farm Bill was signed into law. Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill included several provisions that amended the provisions of section 9002. USDA subsequently amended the Guidelines to incorporate those provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill (79 FR 44641).
The purpose of these amendments is to further revise the Guidelines to incorporate additional changes to section 9002 that were included in the 2014 Farm Bill. These revisions to the Guidelines will not affect products that have already been designated for federal procurement preference. Any changes necessary to the existing designation status of products will be established by future rule-makings.
As a result of public comments received on the proposed amendments to the Guidelines, USDA has made changes in finalizing the amendments. These changes are summarized in the remainder of this section. A summary of each comment received, USDA's response to the comment or group of related comments, and the rationale for any change made in the final rule is presented in section V.
USDA is finalizing the proposed definitions with no changes.
This section has been finalized as proposed.
In the final rule, USDA added a sentence at 3201.5(b)(2) to clarify that evidence of an innovative approach will not be restricted to only those innovative criteria listed in the Guidelines and that consideration of other evidence will be on a case by case basis.
USDA also revised the proposed language in paragraph (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to add the word “biobased” to the description of products or materials that qualify under the first two criteria and also added a paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) stating that products meet the criteria if the biobased content of the product or material makes its composition different from products or material used for the same historical uses or applications.
This section has been finalized as proposed.
USDA solicited comments on the proposed amendments for 60 days ending on December 26, 2014. USDA received ten comments by that date. One of the comments was from an individual citizen, five were from industry trade groups, one was from a biobased product manufacturer, one was from an academic institution, and two were from federal agencies. The comments are presented below, along with USDA's responses, and are grouped by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) section numbers to which they apply.
One commenter asked USDA to consider several questions, such as how it differs from other procurement programs, if it is only defined by having FAR Clause 52.223–1 or 52.223–2 in a contract, if buying a product with a “Biobased symbol” on GSA Advantage is enough, and if it excludes “other sustainability programs such as recycling or energy efficiency.” This commenter also asked for more details on “applicability, data sources, standard data collection methods and consistent analysis of data collected.”
Another commenter recommended that USDA work closely with the Sustainable Acquisition and Materials Management Practices Workgroup to provide guidance to federal agencies and their contractors on fulfilling the new reporting requirement. The commenter stated that this guidance should be “implemented via a policy directive from the Office of Management and Budget/OFPP [Office of Federal Procurement Policy]” such that overlapping reporting requirements and the reporting burden on federal agencies and their contractors are reduced.
Another commenter stated that USDA should decide which data sources to use for collecting the annual biobased procurement results: “Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), SAMM.gov, or General Services Administration and Defense Logistics Agency.” In addition, the commenter indicated that USDA should issue a standard method for how the data will be collected and analyzed and that USDA should conduct the data review via a third-party.
A third commenter stated that for the proposed reporting requirement to be successful, it should be “codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and a specific reporting portal (such as the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation or the System for Award Management [SAM]) should be identified for agencies” to report the data. This commenter urged USDA to “take additional steps” to make sure that federal agencies fulfill the reporting requirement. The commenter suggested implementing a new feature in SAM that would allow federal agencies to report quantities and types of biobased products that they purchased, because there is already a FAR clause in SAM that requires prime contractors to report product types and dollar values of biobased products that are purchased annually.
(i)
(ii)
Two additional commenters supported USDA in designating intermediate chemical categories according to “functional use” because it “offers transparent linkage to the established finished product categories of the Program, as well as recognizing their functional importance in the BioPreferred value chain.” Each commenter provided the same list of “priority” intermediate chemical categories based upon functional use.
No comments were received on the revisions proposed for this section.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the final rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Today's final rule amends the BioPreferred Program Guidelines to establish the regulatory framework for the designation of product categories that were previously excluded from the federal procurement preference because they were mature market products. The designation of such products is specifically required under the Agricultural Act of 2014, which states that the Guidelines shall: “(vi) Promote biobased products, including forest products, that apply an innovative approach to growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased products regardless of the date of entry into the marketplace.”
This rule advances the objectives of the BioPreferred Program, as envisioned by Congress in the 2002, 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, by expanding the scope of products that may be considered for federal procurement preference. The entry into the BioPreferred Program of biobased products that were previously considered to be mature market products will open a new federal market for biobased products that are designated by USDA and also provides newly developed biobased products to be publicized via the BioPreferred Web site. Thus, the rule is expected to increase demand for these products once designated, which, in turn, is expected to increase demand for those agricultural products that can serve as ingredients and feedstocks. This federal procurement preference will thus yield private benefits for businesses producing these ingredients and feedstocks.
Simultaneously, this action could reduce demand for products that do not receive federal procurement preference designation. Producers of biobased products, including intermediate ingredients and feedstocks, that are not so designated or producers of non-biobased products could face a loss of market share within federal procurement.
Manufacturers of biobased products will incur the actual costs of developing the biobased products as well as the costs to gather and submit the biobased product information for the BioPreferred Web site. The costs of developing and marketing new products are, in this case, a voluntary expense if manufacturers choose to pursue a share of the biobased product market.
Although this rule amends or establishes procedures for designating qualifying biobased product categories, no product categories are being designated today. The actual designation of biobased product categories under this program will be accomplished through future rulemaking actions and the effect of those rulemakings on the economy will be addressed at that time.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Although the BioPreferred Program ultimately may have a direct impact on a substantial number of small entities, USDA has determined that this final rule itself does not have a direct significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule directly affects federal agencies, which are required to consider designated products for purchase. In addition, private sector manufacturers and vendors of biobased products voluntarily may provide information to USDA through the means set forth in this rule. However, the rule imposes no requirement on manufacturers and vendors to do so, and does not differentiate between manufacturers and vendors based on size. USDA does not know how many small manufacturers and vendors may opt to participate at this stage of the program.
As explained above, when USDA issues a proposed rulemaking to designate product categories for preferred procurement under this program, USDA will assess the anticipated impact of such designations, including the impact on small entities. USDA anticipates that this program will positively impact small entities that manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, once product categories are designated, this program will provide additional opportunities for small businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to federal agencies. This program also will impact indirectly small entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers. Additionally, this program may decrease opportunities for small businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or provide components for the manufacturing of such products. It is difficult for USDA to definitively assess these anticipated impacts on small entities until USDA proposes product categories for designation. This rule does not designate any product categories.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that have implications for these rights.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not involve administrative appeals.
This final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions of this rule do not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.
This final rule contains no federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this final rule will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection under the Guidelines is currently approved under OMB control number 0503–0011.
USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an electronic information system for posting information voluntarily submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to offer for federal preferred procurement under each designated item. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ron Buckhalt at (202) 205–4008.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture is amending 7 CFR part 3201 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8102.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(i) Composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products, including renewable domestic agricultural materials and forestry materials; or
(ii) An intermediate ingredient or feedstock.
(2) The term “biobased product” includes, with respect to forestry materials, forest products that meet biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether the market for the product is new or emerging.
(1) Pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, lumber, and other wood products; and
(2) Any recycled products derived from forest materials.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A preference program for purchasing qualified biobased products;
(ii) A promotion program to promote the preference program;
(iii) Provisions for the annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of the procurement program; and
(iv) Provisions for reporting quantities and types of biobased products purchased by the Federal agency.
(4) No later than June 15, 2016, each Federal agency shall establish a targeted biobased-only procurement requirement under which the procuring agency shall issue a certain number of biobased-only contracts when the procuring agency is purchasing products, or purchasing services that include the use of products, that are included in a biobased product category designated by the Secretary.
(b) * * *
(2) In designating product categories and intermediate ingredient or feedstock categories for the BioPreferred Program, USDA will consider as eligible only those products that use innovative approaches in the growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of the biobased product. USDA will consider products that meet one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section to be eligible for the BioPreferred Program. USDA will also consider other documentation of innovative approaches in the growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased products on a case-by-case basis. USDA may exclude from the BioPreferred Program any products whose manufacturers are unable to provide USDA with the documentation necessary to verify claims that innovative approaches are
(i)
(B) The biobased product or material is grown, harvested, manufactured, processed, sourced, or applied in other innovative ways; or
(C) The biobased content of the product or material makes its composition different from products or material used for the same historical uses or applications.
(ii)
(B) The biobased product or material is manufactured or processed with technologies that ensure high feedstock material recovery and use.
(iii)
(iv)
(B) The raw material used in the product is 100% resourced or recycled (such as material obtained from building deconstruction); or
(C) The raw material used in the product is from an urban environment and is acquired as a result of activities related to a natural disaster, land clearing, right-of-way maintenance, tree health improvement, or public safety.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * The Web site will, as determined to be necessary by the Secretary based on the availability of data, provide information as to the availability, price, biobased content, performance and environmental and public health benefits of the designated product categories and designated intermediate ingredient or feedstock categories. * * *
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending its regulations concerning the Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products, to incorporate statutory changes to section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (the 2002 Farm Bill) that went into effect when the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill) was signed into law on February 7, 2014.
This rule is effective July 15, 2015.
Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
USDA is amending 7 CFR part 3202 to incorporate the statutory changes to section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act made by enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 on February 7, 2014. USDA is also finalizing amendments that clarify the rules under which the voluntary labeling program operates. The remainder of this section presents a brief summary of the amendments to the existing voluntary labeling program rules and Section IV of this preamble presents more detailed discussions.
USDA is amending 7 CFR 3202.2 by deleting the definitions of “BioPreferred Product,” “Designated item,” and “Mature market products.” USDA is also revising the definitions of “Biobased product,” “Certification mark artwork,” and “Intermediate ingredient or feedstock” and adding new definitions for “Designated product category,” “Forest product,” “Qualified biobased product,” and “Renewable chemical.” These changes are being made to bring the voluntary labeling rule up to date with the BioPreferred Program Guidelines and the 2014 Farm Bill.
USDA is adding a paragraph and subparagraphs to section 3202.4 that describe the biobased content criteria for complex assemblies. Procedures for designating complex assemblies for the federal preferred procurement initiative have been added to the BioPreferred Program Guidelines and this final rule updates the voluntary labeling program rules to include these products.
USDA is also adding paragraphs to section 3202.4 to present the criteria for evaluating whether products use “innovative approaches.” The Conference Report on the 2014 Farm Bill states that “It is the Managers'
USDA is amending paragraph (a)(1) to specifically address situations where a manufacturer seeks certification for a new product that is composed of the same biobased ingredients and has the same biobased content as a previously certified product. In these cases, where a new product for which certification is sought is composed of the same biobased ingredients and has the same biobased content as a product that has already been certified, the manufacturer may, in lieu of having the new product tested, self-declare the biobased content of the new product by referencing the tested biobased content of the certified product. Certification of the original product must have been obtained by either the manufacturer of the new product or by the supplier of the biobased ingredients used in the new product. This provision will result in reduced biobased content testing, and thus a cost savings, for manufacturers who use the same biobased ingredients to formulate products that differ in size or shape or that are marketed for different applications.
USDA is also amending paragraph (c)(5) to state that manufacturers wishing to change the name of their company or the name of a certified product must notify USDA in writing within 30 days of making such changes.
USDA is also amending paragraph (d)(2) to clarify that, although certifications do not have a predetermined expiration date, they are subject to mandatory periodic auditing activities and to suspension or revocation if biobased content violations are identified. USDA is amending this paragraph to allow for the revocation of a certification if it is discovered that certification was issued as a result of error(s) on the part of USDA during the approval process.
USDA is amending paragraph 3202.8(c)(3) to correct an error in a reference cited in the paragraph. The reference to 7 CFR part 3017 is incorrect. The appropriate references are 2 CFR part 417 and 48 CFR subpart 9.4.
USDA is adding a new section 3202.10(d) that identifies three auditing efforts that will be ongoing for the voluntary labeling program. The 2014 Farm Bill contained specific language authorizing USDA to perform auditing and compliance activities necessary to ensure that the label is used only on products that meet the established eligibility criteria.
USDA expects to conduct audits of the voluntary labeling program on an ongoing basis with audit activities conducted every other calendar year (bi-annually). Audit activities will include three stages and will be conducted in sequential order. Stage 1 was conducted in 2012, Stage 2 will be conducted in 2014, and Stage 3 will be conducted in 2016. In 2018, the sequence will start over with Stage 1.
Stage 1 auditing includes contacting all participants via email and requesting that they complete a “Declaration of Conformance Form.” Program participants are asked to confirm that they still manufacture the product and that the formulation and manufacturing processes remain the same.
Stage 2 auditing consists of a random sampling of certified products to confirm the accuracy of biobased content percentages claimed. The participants whose products are selected will be required to submit product samples to be tested by independent testing labs at USDA expense.
Stage 3 auditing requires manufacturers of products that have been certified for 5 years or more to have their products re-tested at their expense to confirm that the biobased content remains at or above the level at which the product was originally certified.
USDA believes that the audit program outlined above will be a valuable tool in ensuring the integrity of the program and compliance with the voluntary labeling program rules.
The Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products was established under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), and further amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), 7 U.S.C. 8102. (Section 9002 of the 2002 Farm Bill, as amended by the 2008 and the 2014 Farm Bills, is referred to in this document as “section 9002”).
Section 9002 establishes a program for preferred procurement of biobased products by federal agencies and a voluntary program for the labeling of biobased products. These two programs are referred to collectively by USDA as the BioPreferred® program.
Under the preferred procurement program, federal agencies and their contractors are required to purchase biobased products, as defined in regulations implementing the statute, that are within designated product categories when the cumulative purchase price of the products to be procured is more than $10,000 or when the quantities of functionally equivalent items purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more. The final rules under which the preferred procurement program operates are
The final rules for the voluntary labeling program, under which USDA authorizes manufacturers and vendors of biobased products to use a “USDA Certified Biobased Product” label (hereafter referred to in this preamble as “the certification mark”), are found at 7 CFR part 3202. The voluntary labeling program is intended to encourage the purchase and use of biobased products by reaching beyond the federal purchasing community and promoting the purchase of biobased products by commercial entities and the general public. In establishing this program, USDA identified the criteria to determine those products on which the certification mark may be used and developed specific requirements for how the mark can be used. It is USDA's intent that the presence of the certification mark on a product will mean that the labeled product is one for which credible factual information is available as to the biobased content, consistently measured across labeled products by use of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) radioisotope test D6866.
On July 31, 2009, USDA published a proposed rule for the voluntary labeling program under the authority of section 9002 (74 FR 38296–01). The voluntary labeling program final rule was promulgated on January 20, 2011 (76 FR 3790–01).
On February 7, 2014, the 2014 Farm Bill was signed into law and included several provisions that amended the provisions of section 9002. The primary purpose of these rule amendments is to revise the voluntary labeling program final rule to incorporate changes to section 9002 that were included in the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA is also finalizing certain clarifying amendments to the program rules based on several years of operating experience. These amendments will not affect the status of products that have already been certified by USDA to display the certification mark. However, when Stage 3 of the auditing program (7 CFR part 3202, section 3202.10) is conducted in 2016, manufacturers whose product certification is at least 5 years old will incur additional costs of about $400 per certified product for biobased content re-testing.
As a result of public comments received on the proposed amendments to the Voluntary Labeling Program regulations, USDA has made changes in finalizing the amendments. These changes are summarized in the remainder of this section. A summary of each comment received, USDA's response to the comment or group of related comments, and the rationale for any change made in the final rule is presented in section V.
USDA is finalizing the proposed definitions with no changes.
USDA revised the proposed language in paragraph (c)(2) to add the word “biobased” to the description of products or materials that qualify under criterion 1 and also added a paragraph (iii) stating that products meet the criteria if the biobased content of the product or material makes its composition different from products or material used for the same historical uses or applications.
In the final rule, USDA added a sentence at 3202.4(c)(4) to clarify that evidence of an innovative approach will not be restricted to only those innovative criteria listed in the Guidelines and that consideration of other evidence will be on a case-by-case basis.
This section has been finalized as proposed.
This section has been finalized as proposed.
This section has been finalized as proposed.
USDA solicited comments on the proposed amendments for 60 days ending on December 26, 2014. USDA received eight comments by that date. One of the comments was from an individual citizen, five were from industry trade groups, one was from an academic institution, and one was from a biobased product manufacturer. The comments are presented below, along with USDA's responses, and are grouped by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) section numbers to which they apply.
(i)
(ii)
A second commenter provided USDA with two examples of a Type III EPD and noted that the EPD requires a product to meet “Product Category Rules.” The commenter pointed out that this information “may or may not be available and would require time to develop.” The commenter added that the “LCA related data” included in the EPD will assist in comparing products but inquired how federal agencies will use this data. Additionally, the commenter asked if there is an advantage to using this data as one means of defining “biobased purchasing.”
The same commenter stated appreciation for the proposed rule but recommended that USDA develop methods for downstream companies that use USDA Certified Biobased chemicals/products in their formulations. The commenter stated that companies that choose to blend USDA Certified Biobased chemicals/products in their products should be able to display the USDA Certified Biobased Product label.
No comments were received on the revisions proposed for this section.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the final rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This final rule amends the voluntary labeling program rules to establish the regulatory framework for the labeling of products that were previously excluded from the program because they were mature market products. The designation of such products is specifically required under the Agricultural Act of 2014, which states that the Guidelines shall: “(vi) Promote biobased products, including forest products, that apply an innovative approach to growing, harvesting, sourcing, procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased products regardless of the date of entry into the marketplace.”
This rule advances the objectives of the BioPreferred Program, as envisioned by Congress in the 2002, 2008 and 2014
Simultaneously, this action could reduce demand for competing products that are not eligible for the voluntary labeling program. Producers of biobased products, including intermediate ingredients and feedstocks, that are not certified for labeling or producers of non-biobased products could face a loss of market share within both the public and federal agencies. USDA does not have sufficient information on the expected extent of this potential loss of market share to assign a dollar value to this impact.
As part of the Stage 3 auditing process to be conducted during calendar year 2016, manufacturers of biobased products that have been certified for five or more years will be required to have their products biobased content re-tested. We estimate that the cost for product re-testing is about $300 to $400 per product. The labeling program was implemented in 2011 and only those products that were certified during 2011 will incur the re-testing cost of the Stage 3 audit to be conducted during 2016. There were 1,338 applications for certification received during 2011 and USDA estimates that 1,000 of the products represented by those applications continue to display the label under the original certification. Thus, the total estimated cost of the auditing effort to all manufacturers is expected to be, at most, $400,000 (1,000 products × $400 per test) during 2016. Considering that this total cost would be spread over several hundred manufacturers making these products and that no additional re-testing costs are expected until the year 2022, USDA believes that the cost to any one manufacturer is reasonable.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Although the voluntary labeling program ultimately may have a direct impact on a substantial number of small entities, USDA has determined that this final rule itself will not have a direct significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Private sector manufacturers and vendors of biobased products voluntarily may provide information to USDA through the means set forth in this rule. However, the rule imposes no requirement on manufacturers and vendors to do so, and does not differentiate between manufacturers and vendors based on size. USDA does not know how many small manufacturers and vendors may opt to participate in the voluntary labeling program. USDA anticipates that this program will positively impact small entities which manufacture or sell biobased products by allowing them to display the certification mark and to list their products in the BioPreferred Program Web site catalog. However, this program may decrease opportunities for small businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or provide components for the manufacturing of such products. It is, however, not possible for USDA to definitively assess these anticipated impacts on small entities.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that have implications for these rights.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not involve administrative appeals.
This final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions of this rule do not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.
This final rule contains no federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this final rule will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection under the voluntary labeling program is currently approved under OMB control number 0503–0020.
USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an electronic information system for posting information voluntarily submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to offer for federal preferred procurement under each designated item. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ron Buckhalt at (202) 205–4008.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture is amending 7 CFR part 3202 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8102.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(i) Composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products, including renewable domestic agricultural materials and forestry materials; or
(ii) An intermediate ingredient or feedstock.
(2) The term “biobased product” includes, with respect to forestry materials, forest products that meet biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether the market for the product is new or emerging.
(1) Pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, lumber, and other wood products; and
(2) Any recycled products derived from forest materials.
A product must meet each of the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section in order to be eligible to receive biobased product certification.
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(4)
(ii) If a product certified under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section is within a category that USDA subsequently designates for federal preferred procurement, the applicable minimum biobased content shall become, as of the effective date of the final designation rule, the minimum biobased content specified for the item as found in subpart B of 7 CFR part 3201.
(c)
(1)
(ii) The biobased product or material is grown, harvested, manufactured, processed, sourced, or applied in other innovative ways; or
(iii) The biobased content of the product or material makes its composition different from products or material used for the same historical uses or applications.
(2)
(ii) The biobased product or material is manufactured or processed with technologies that ensure high feedstock material recovery and use.
(3)
(4)
(ii) The raw material used in the product is 100% resourced or recycled (such as material obtained from building deconstruction); or
(iii) The raw material used in the product is from an urban environment and is acquired as a result of activities related to a natural disaster, land clearing, right-of-way maintenance, tree health improvement, or public safety.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(c) * * * Paragraph (c)(5) of this section presents the procedures for revising the information provided under paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section after a notice of certification has been issued.
(5) If at any time, during the application process or after a product has been certified, any of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section changes, the applicant must notify USDA of the change within 30 days. Such notification must be provided in writing to USDA.
(d) * * *
(1) The effective date of certification is the date on which the applicant receives a notice of certification from USDA. Except as specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(v) of this section, certifications will remain in effect as long as the product is manufactured and marketed in accordance with the approved application and the requirements of this subpart.
(2) * * *
(iv) All certifications are subject to USDA periodic auditing activities, as described in § 3202.10(d). If a manufacturer or vendor of a certified biobased product fails to participate in such audit activities or if such audit activities reveal biobased content violations, as specified in § 3202.8(b)(1), the certification will be subject to suspension and revocation according to the procedures specified in § 3202.8(c).
(v) If USDA discovers that a certification has been issued for an ineligible biobased product as a result of errors on the part of USDA during the approval process, USDA will notify the product's manufacturer or vendor in writing that the certification is revoked effective 30 days from the date of the notice.
(c) * * *
(3)
(d)
(1) Stage 1 auditing includes contacting all participants via email and requesting that they complete a “Declaration of Conformance Form.” Program participants are asked to confirm that they still manufacture the product and that the formulation and manufacturing processes remain the same. Participants are also asked to list all active products and advise the USDA of any complaints regarding the claim of the biobased content. The first Stage 1 auditing activity was completed in 2012 and the second Stage 1 audit will be conducted in 2018.
(2) Stage 2 auditing consists of a random sampling of certified products to confirm the accuracy of biobased content percentages claimed. The participants whose products are selected will be required to submit product samples to be tested by independent testing labs at USDA expense. The first Stage 2 auditing activity began in 2014 and is scheduled to be completed during 2015 and the second Stage 2 audit will be conducted in 2020.
(3) Stage 3 auditing requires manufacturers of products that have been certified for 5 years or more to have their products re-tested at their expense to confirm that the biobased content remains at or above the level at which the product was originally certified. The first Stage 3 auditing activity is scheduled to be completed during 2016 and the second Stage 3 audit will be conducted in 2022.
In rule document 2015–11229 beginning on page 28346 in the issue of Monday, May 18, 2015, make the following correction:
On pages 28475 through 28477, in Appendix 1 to Part 24, the form should appear as follows:
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Final rule.
This rule finalizes the proposed rule that the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued for the Microloan Program to accomplish the goals of expanding the pool of eligible microborrowers, increasing minimum microloan production standards, removing the requirement that Intermediaries deposit funds only in interest bearing accounts, and allowing Microloan Program Intermediaries to use credit unions as depositories for their Microloan Revolving Funds (MRFs) and Loan Loss Reserve Funds (LLRFs). The rule also includes technical amendments that conform the regulations to current statutory authority.
This rule is effective July 15, 2015.
Grady Hedgespeth, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity: ATTN: Daniel Upham, Chief, Microenterprise Development Division, Office of Economic Opportunity, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone 202–205–7001.
Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)) (“Act”) authorizes SBA's Microloan Program, which assists small businesses that need small amounts of financial assistance. Under the program, SBA makes direct loans to Intermediaries, as defined in § 120.701(e), that use the loan proceeds to make microloans to eligible borrowers. SBA is also authorized to make grants to Intermediaries to be used for marketing, management, and technical assistance.
On March 17, 2014, SBA published a proposed rule in the
A summary of the comments received on the four proposed changes follows. There were no comments on the technical amendment. The final rule also includes two additional technical amendments that remove provisions with expired statutory authority, as further described below.
SBA received 19 written comments on the proposed rule during the comment period. Three of the comments addressed issues unrelated to the proposed rule changes; the remaining 16 comments were carefully considered. Commenters included several trade associations/advocacy groups and Intermediaries currently participating in the Microloan program. In general, commenters were supportive of the proposed changes. A section-by-section discussion of the comments received and the changes made follows.
A.
SBA agrees that Microloan Program Intermediaries should be allowed to use the type of depository institution that best meets their needs, as long as the institution is federally insured. Proposed § 120.701(d) is adopted without change.
B.
Expanding eligibility for the Microloan Program will allow for increased creation of new businesses and will reduce the Federal barriers to successful reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals, who often have difficulty finding steady employment. The Agency developed this revision to the Microloan Program eligibility requirements as a result of a regulatory review conducted in connection with SBA's participation on the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. SBA's Microloan Program offers an opportunity for formerly incarcerated individuals who meet the Intermediaries' lending criteria to receive financing and technical assistance to start their own businesses.
Risk to the taxpayer is mitigated because the Intermediary makes lending decisions locally, and provides microborrowers with training and technical assistance to help them learn to manage, market, and grow their small businesses. Furthermore, unlike in SBA's 7(a) and 504 programs, microloans are not guaranteed by SBA. Intermediaries are responsible for ensuring that their borrowers repay, and Intermediaries are obligated to repay their loans to SBA regardless of the performance of the microloans funded using those loan proceeds.
SBA agrees that a clarified definition of “crime involving fraud or dishonesty” should be provided and will do so via updates to the Microloan Program Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 52 00), which provides details regarding Microloan Program
C.
D.
One commenter questioned whether it would be possible for an Intermediary to meet the minimum loan requirement during the last years of the term of the Intermediary's SBA loan, when the loan balance may not support an additional twelve loans. SBA does not believe that this comment warrants a change in the final rule, for a number of reasons. The minimum loan requirement is an overall requirement, not one based on each SBA loan to an Intermediary. The majority of Intermediaries in the Microloan program have multiple outstanding SBA loans; therefore it is rare for an Intermediary to rely on only one SBA loan as the source of its Microloan funds.
A trade organization questioned SBA's proposal to establish an across the board 12 loan minimum threshold for all lenders and suggested that SBA consider looking at other indicators in addition to the volume of loans made, such as the total amount of loans made. SBA believes that number of loans, rather than dollar volume of loans, is the most appropriate indicator for the Microloan Program. The Act specifically states that one of the purposes of the Program is to enable Intermediaries “to provide small-scale loans, particularly loans in amounts averaging not more than $10,000.” (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(1)(A)(iii)(I)). In addition, the statute provides incentives, including lower costs of funds and additional grant funding, to Intermediaries that make smaller loans. Furthermore, despite the recent increase in the maximum microloan amount to $50,000, Congress did not similarly raise the average dollar amount threshold required to qualify for the incentives mentioned above.
Assuming the same number of loans per year, the volume of lending for an Intermediary with an average loan size of less than $10,000 is significantly less than the volume of lending for an Intermediary with an average loan size above $25,000. Therefore, SBA does not feel it is appropriate to measure Intermediaries based on volume of dollars loaned. Such a measure would disproportionally harm Intermediaries that make the smallest dollar loans and provide Intermediaries with an incentive to do larger loans. Given these facts, SBA believes that a standard based on number of loans is more consistent with Congressional intent than a standard based on dollar volume of loans.
The current minimum loan requirement is four loans per year. Proposed § 120.716 would have gradually increased the minimum loan requirement over a three-year period to twelve loans per year. Most of the commenters generally supported increasing the minimum number of microloans from the current requirement. Five commenters supported increasing the requirement to twelve loans per year, as proposed. Several commenters supported a smaller increase in the minimum loan requirement, such as six, eight or ten loans per year. Some commenters were concerned that rural Intermediaries, small Intermediaries, and Intermediaries serving smaller geographic areas would be unable to meet a twelve loan requirement, and would therefore become ineligible to receive grant funding. Several of these commenters recommended a prorated approach to grant funding so as not to penalize the microloan borrowers of Intermediaries that fail to make the minimum required number of loans.
In response to these comments, SBA has reduced the minimum loan requirement from twelve loans to ten loans and modified the rule to provide a corrective action process and possible eligibility for reduced grants for Intermediaries that make less than the minimum required number of loans. As in the proposed rule, there will be a gradual ramp-up period: six microloans in fiscal year 2016, eight microloans in fiscal year 2017, and ten microloans in fiscal year 2018 and thereafter. SBA also added a provision to clarify that the minimum loan requirement for fiscal year 2015 remains four microloans. Based on average loan data for active Intermediaries (
In addition, SBA has revised § 120.716(b) to include a corrective action process for Intermediaries that do not meet the minimum loan requirement. SBA determines whether an Intermediary is eligible for grant funding based on the number of microloans made in the previous Federal fiscal year. Under the proposed rule, an Intermediary that did not make the minimum number of microloans in the previous year would be ineligible for any grant funds. In response to comments received on the proposed rule, SBA revised § 120.716(b) to allow Intermediaries that do not meet the minimum loan requirement to submit corrective action plans to SBA. An Intermediary that submits an acceptable corrective action plan may be awarded a reduced grant. This change makes it possible for Intermediaries that have not met the minimum loan requirement, but are taking steps to improve loan production, to still receive some grant funding. Conditions for reduced grants and details on corrective action plan submission requirements will be provided in the Microloan SOP.
Several commenters also pointed out that it could be difficult for a new Intermediary to make the required number of loans per year, and suggested an exception for these Intermediaries. In response to these comments, SBA
Another commenter asked whether an Intermediary that has multiple loans from SBA is required to meet minimum loan requirements for each such SBA loan. The minimum loan requirement is an overall requirement; it does not increase based on the number of loans the Intermediary has outstanding from SBA.
An advocacy group that supported the proposed minimum loan requirement nonetheless raised a concern that an increase in the minimum loan requirement might create a gap in the availability of funds for businesses in need of larger loans in the $20,000 to $50,000 range, because Intermediaries would make more small-dollar loans in order to meet the requirements. SBA does not anticipate that Intermediaries with average loan sizes of $20,000 or more (which currently make up 39% of all Intermediaries) will significantly alter their lending practices as a result of the increased loan production requirements. Furthermore, none of the comments from current Intermediaries indicated that average loan sizes would be likely to change as a result of the increased loan requirement.
The final rule revises § 120.712(d), Intermediaries eligible to receive additional grant monies, to remove subparagraph (1), which provided additional grant eligibility for an Intermediary that makes at least 25 percent of its loans to small businesses located in or owned by residents of an Economically Distressed Area. The authority to provide additional grants to such Intermediaries expired on October 1, 1997. See Public Law 103–403, section 208(c). Under current statutory authority, only Intermediaries that maintain a microloan portfolio averaging $10,000 or less, defined as Specialized Intermediaries in § 120.701, are eligible to receive additional grant funding.
The final rule also removes the definition of Economically Distressed Area in § 120.701(b), because that term was only present in former § 120.712(c) and (d)(1). As stated above, subparagraph (1) of § 120.712(d) was removed because the statutory authority for the provision expired. Similarly, as stated in the proposed rule, the authority for § 120.712(c) was removed from the statute in 2010.
These additional technical amendments serve only to conform program regulations to current SBA statutory authority; they do not change existing Agency practice, nor do they have any effect on program participants.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866. However, this is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800. A Regulatory Impact Analysis was published in the proposed rule. In summary, the regulatory objectives include: allowing Federally-insured credit unions to hold MRF and LLRF accounts; allowing any Microloan Program Intermediary to make a microloan (loan of $50,000 or less) to a business with an Associate who is on probation or parole; removing the requirement that the Microloan Revolving Fund (MRF) and Loan Loss Reserve Fund (LLRF) be held in interest bearing deposit accounts; increasing the minimum number of loans that an Intermediary must make annually in order to qualify for grant funding; and, adding technical amendments that conform the regulations to current statutory authority. No comments were received regarding the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
A description of the need for this regulatory action and the benefits and costs associated with this action, including possible distributional impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563, were included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. The changes would impact approximately 50 Microloan Intermediaries that generally make fewer than 10 loans per year but more than three loans. It is anticipated that the costs to the Intermediaries will be only those associated with the operating expenses associated with making and servicing an increased number of loans. SBA does not anticipate any impact on the program's subsidy model and believes that Intermediaries will continue to make prudent lending decisions. SBA also anticipates improved use of resources as more microloans are made.
Based on the analysis of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council from 2010 (
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
SBA has determined that this final rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purpose of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations be based in the best available science and that the rulemaking process allow for public participation and the open exchange of ideas. This rule has been developed consistent with these requirements and is written with the idea of reducing the number and burden of regulations.
The Microloan Program operates through SBA lending partners, which are Intermediary lenders. Prior to publication of the proposed rule, the Agency presented the proposals in meetings which allowed it to reach the vast majority of Microloan Program participants and stakeholder trade associations. In this way, the Agency was able to gain valuable insight, guidance, and suggestions from interested parties.
As discussed above, in response to comments received, SBA is making a change in the final rule that will require Intermediaries that are not in compliance with the minimum loan standards to submit a corrective action plan to the Agency as a condition of
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires administrative agencies to consider the economic impact of their actions on small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit businesses, and small local governments. The RFA requires the Agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the economic impact that the rule will have on small entities, or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBA has determined that although the rulemaking will impact all of the approximately 145 Intermediaries, such impact will not be significant. All of the Intermediaries are small nonprofit or quasi-governmental entities. Approximately 63 existing Intermediaries (43 percent), including Intermediaries that are not currently active, will be required to increase loan production in order to meet new minimum lending requirements. To minimize hardship, SBA will increase the minimum lending requirement in a graduated fashion: six microloans in 2016, 8 microloans in 2017, and 10 microloans in 2018 and thereafter. This graduated increase will provide Intermediaries with time to ramp up loan production to meet the higher requirements. SBA anticipates that a small number of Intermediaries may choose to end their participation in the Microloan Program as a result of the new requirements. However, these entities are making so few loans, and generating such a small amount of revenue from these microloans, that exiting the program will not cause a significant economic impact for the Intermediaries or for potential borrowers. The 63 affected Intermediaries represent an estimated 315 total microloans for approximately $5.3 million, or 5 microloans per Intermediary. Over the past five years, the Microloan Program has averaged 4,180 microloans totaling $49.3 million. Therefore, even if all of the affected Intermediaries left the program, the impact would reduce microloan volumes by just 7.5 percent in terms of number of loans and 10.9 percent in terms of volume of loans. These estimates assume that all 63 impacted Intermediaries would leave the Program. SBA believes that the number of Intermediaries choosing to leave the Program would actually be significantly less, further reducing potential economic impact. In addition, although failure to meet the minimum loan requirement is grounds for an enforcement action under § 120.1425, SBA does not currently anticipate using the minimum loan requirement as the sole basis for taking enforcement actions against Intermediaries.
SBA estimates that entities leaving the program will lose approximately $23,000 in annual revenue associated with microloans that would have been made under the SBA Microloan Program. The $23,000 represents approximate annual interest and fee income for five microloans of $17,000. An organization making just five microloans a year is not sustainable and must rely on other sources of income to operate. Microloan Intermediaries average more than $1.25 million in annual revenues; $23,000 in lost revenue represents less than 2 percent of total annual revenues per affected Intermediary.
No comments were received regarding economic impact except that some small Intermediaries indicated concern that they would not be able to appropriately serve rural areas. This concern has been addressed in the final rule by reducing the minimum loan requirement from twelve loans to ten loans per year and providing a corrective action process by which Intermediaries that do not meet the minimum loan requirement may still be eligible for grant funding at a reduced amount. Accordingly, the SBA Administrator hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Community development, Equal employment opportunity, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Small Business Administration amends 13 CFR part 120 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h), and note 636(a), (h), and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3), and 697(a) and (e); Pub. Law 111–5, 123 Stat. 115, Pub. Law 111–240, 124 Stat 2504.
(c)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, an Intermediary may only make Microloans to small businesses eligible to receive financial assistance under this part. A borrower may also use Microloan proceeds to establish a nonprofit child care business. An Intermediary may also make Microloans to businesses with an Associate who is currently on probation or parole; provided, however, that the Associate is not on probation or parole for an offense involving fraud or dishonesty or, in the case of a child care business, is not on probation or parole for an offense against children. Proceeds from Microloans may be used only for working capital and acquisition of materials, supplies, furniture, fixtures, and equipment. SBA does not review Microloans for creditworthiness.
The Microloan Revolving Fund (“MRF”) is a Deposit Account into which an Intermediary must deposit the proceeds from SBA loans, its contributions from non-Federal sources, and payments from its Microloan borrowers. * * *
(a)
(c)
(a)
(1) For fiscal year 2015, four microloans,
(2) For fiscal year 2016, six microloans,
(3) For fiscal year 2017, eight microloans, and
(4) For fiscal years 2018 and thereafter, ten microloans per year.
(b) Intermediaries that do not meet the minimum loan requirement are not eligible to receive new grant funding unless they submit a corrective action plan acceptable to SBA, in its discretion. Intermediaries that have submitted acceptable corrective action plans may receive a reduced grant at SBA's discretion.
(d) * * *
(2) Failure to close and fund the required number of microloans per year under § 120.716.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of effective date; final rule, technical amendment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is providing notice that the final rule published on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 13078) became effective on June 9, 2015. NOAA is also changing the name of Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Maria Brown, Superintendent, Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, (415) 561–6622 ext. 301 or
The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) was designated in 1981 and was originally named the Point Reyes/Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The name was changed to Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary on January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3788). In March 2015, NOAA expanded the sanctuary from approximately 1,282 square miles (968 square nautical miles) to approximately 3,295 square miles (2,488 square nautical miles)(80 FR 13078).
This document provides notice that pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the final regulations for GFNMS and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary published on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 13078) took effect after 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on March 12, 2015. Through this notice, NOAA is announcing the regulations became effective on June 9, 2015. The final rule published on March 12, 2015 postponed for 6 months the effective date for the discharge requirements in both expansion areas with regard to U.S. Coast Guard activities, starting on the day when the rest of the final rule became effective. Therefore the effective date for the discharge requirements in both expansion areas with regard to U.S. Coast Guard activities is December 9, 2015.
With this expansion, which extends the scope of the sanctuary well beyond the Farralon Islands, the existing name “Gulf of the Farallones” no longer adequately reflects the area's bioregion. The need to change the sanctuary's name was raised during the public hearings on the GFNMS expansion. Consequently, the GFNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council established a subcommittee to explore a potential new name for the expanded sanctuary. GFNMS staff, working with a team of marketing experts, then developed a list of 30 potential names and presented them to the subcommittee, which narrowed the list to three names for consideration by the full Advisory Council on November 19, 2014. On February 25, 2015, the Advisory Council recommended two options to the GFNMS Superintendent: (1) Keeping the name “Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary” because the name is familiar and still represents one of the core elements of the sanctuary ecosystem; and (2) changing the name to the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary to better capture the added features of the expanded sanctuary. After reviewing both of these recommendations carefully, NOAA decided on “Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary” to be more inclusive and representative of the expanded sanctuary.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (NOS) finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act because this amendment is technical in nature, having no substantive impact, and no useful purpose would be served by
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration amends 15 CFR part 922 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1431
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Final rule.
This final rule adopts, with clarifying changes, the proposed rule we previously published in the
This final rule is effective on July 15, 2015.
Sylvia Diaz, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 965–1981. For information on eligibility or filing benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
Congress enacted the GPO in 1977 to reduce the Social Security spouse's benefit of workers who receive a government pension based on noncovered employment. A Social Security spouse's old-age benefit is a benefit that, under certain circumstances, the spouse, widow(er), mother, father, divorced spouse, or surviving divorced spouse of an insured person is entitled to receive. Congress created spouse's benefits to help people who depend on their working spouses for financial support, either because they did not work or did not work long enough to be entitled to their own Social Security retirement benefit.
Spouse's benefits are separate from the Social Security retirement benefits earned based on an individual's own earnings record. We base a spouse's benefit on the Social Security earnings record of an individual's current, deceased, or former spouse. The GPO does not apply to Social Security retirement or disability benefits that we base on an individual's own earnings.
Under the Social Security program, an individual who is entitled to more than one Social Security benefit at the same time does not receive the full amount of each benefit. For example, an individual who worked and paid Social Security taxes may be eligible for a retirement benefit based on his or her own earnings and may also be eligible for spouse's benefits based on another person's earnings. In this case, if the spouse's benefit is greater than the individual's retirement benefit, we will reduce the spouse's benefit by the amount of the individual's own retirement benefit. Therefore, the individual's own retirement benefit “offsets” the benefit amount paid as a spouse.
In certain instances, an individual may earn wages but not pay Social Security taxes. We call this noncovered work. This situation exists for some Federal, State, and local government employees who contributed to a government-employee pension plan and receive a government pension. Since these individuals did not pay Social Security taxes on their noncovered employment, they are not eligible for Social Security retirement benefits based on that work. However, they may be eligible for Social Security spouse's benefits.
Congress believed that individuals who received a government pension based on their own noncovered work would receive a “windfall” if they also received Social Security spouse's benefits that their government pension did not offset.
Under the 1977 law, the GPO did not apply if Social Security covered the person's last day of government employment. The wording of this law allowed an individual to spend an entire career in a noncovered job and avoid the GPO by working in a covered job for only 1 day. To close this “last
For workers whose last day of State or local government employment occurred between March 2, 2004 and March 1, 2009, we will reduce the 60-month requirement by the total number of months that the worker served in covered employment on or before March 2, 2004. The worker must perform the remaining month(s) of service needed to fulfill this 60-month requirement after March 2, 2004. Therefore, even if a worker had 60 or more months of covered government service on or before March 2, 2004, that worker would still have to work his or her last month of covered government service after March 2, 2004.
The last 60-month requirement established by section 418 of the SSPA is similar to a requirement established by section 9007 of the OBRA 1987, Public Law 100–203. Section 9007 specified that Federal employees who transfer from the Civil Service Retirement System to the Federal Employees Retirement System must work for at least 60 months, taken together, in covered employment in order to avoid application of the GPO.
On August 3, 2007, we published an NPRM in the
We re-worded and reorganized the proposed regulatory language to better explain how we apply the GPO rules. These changes make the regulations clearer and easier to understand. The language changes do not affect the substance of the regulation as proposed in our NPRM.
In the NPRM, we proposed replacing the words “receiving” and “received” with the word “payable.” We decided against this change. Variations of the term “receive” more clearly describe the fact that a government pension plan must pay a person a periodic benefit from for GPO to apply. Additionally, use of the term “receive” in this section maintains consistency throughout our regulations.
We simplified the language in proposed 404.408a(a)(1), and redesignated the section as 404.408a(a)(2).We redesignated proposed 404.408a(a)(1) as (a)(2) because we are adding a new 404.408a(a)(1). In the proposed rules, we used the terms “government pension” and “noncovered employment” without a definition. We also referred to an individual's “Social Security benefits as a wife, husband, widow, widower, mother or father, divorced or surviving divorced spouse” throughout proposed 404.408a(a), as well as in proposed 404.408a(b) and (d).
To simplify and clarify the rules, we added a definitional paragraph to 404.408a(a) for these terms. We defined the terms government pension and noncovered employment in 404.408a(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) and added 404.408a(a)(2)(iii) to define “spouse's benefits,” which is a single term used to represent those beneficiaries affected by this section: Wives, husbands, widows, widowers, mothers, fathers, divorced or surviving divorced spouses. Using a single term to describe these groups simplifies our rules and makes them easier to understand. The addition of these terms does not change or affect the categories of beneficiaries affected or change the substance of the rules we proposed.
We simplified the language in proposed 404.408a(a)(3) and moved it to 404.408a(b)(6), except for the final sentence of (3)(ii).
We revised the final sentence of proposed 404.408a(a)(3)(ii) and moved it to 404.408a(a)(2).
We simplified the first sentence of proposed 404.408a(a)(4) and moved it to 404.408a(b)(6)(ii) to clarify that it applies to the last 60 months rule.
We simplified the second sentence of proposed 404.408a(a)(4) and moved it to 404.408a(a)(1)(ii) to clarify that it applies to all of § 404.408a.
We simplified the language of proposed 404.408a(d) and added provisions from proposed paragraph 404.408a(a)(5).
We revised the language of proposed 404.408a(b)(6) and moved it to 404.408a(b)(7).
We simplified formerly proposed 404.408a(a)(2) and moved it to 404.408a(b)(8) as a new exception.
On August 3, 2007, we published an NPRM in the
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 and was not subject to OMB review.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors and Disability
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 404, subpart E as follows:
Secs. 202, 203, 204(a) and (e), 205(a) and (c), 216(l), 222(c), 223(e), 224, 225, 702(a)(5), and 1129A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 403, 404(a) and (e), 405(a) and (c), 416(l), 422(c), 423(e), 424a, 425, 902(a)(5), and 1320a–8a); 48 U.S.C. 1801.
(a)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(b) * * *
(6) If you are receiving a government pension and the last 60 months of your government employment were covered by both Social Security and the pension plan that provides your government pension.
(i) If the last day of your government employment was after June 30, 2004 and on or before March 2, 2009, we will apply a transitional rule to reduce the last 60-month requirement under the following conditions:
(A) You worked 60 months in Federal, State, or local government employment covered by Social Security before March 2, 2004, and you worked at least 1 month of covered government employment after March 2, 2004, or
(B) You worked fewer than 60 months in government employment covered by Social Security on or before March 2, 2004 and you worked the remaining number of months needed to total 60 months after March 2, 2004. The months that you worked before or after March 2, 2004 do not have to be consecutive.
(ii) We will always reduce your monthly spouse's benefit if you receive a government pension based on noncovered employment and you later go back to work for a Federal, State, or local government, unless:
(A) Your final 60 months of Federal, State, or local government employment were covered by Social Security; and
(B) Both your earlier and later Federal, State, or local government employment were under the same pension plan.
(7) If you are a former Federal employee and you receive a government pension based on work that included at least 60 months in employment covered by Social Security in the period beginning January 1, 1988 and ending with the first month you became entitled to spouse's benefits, whether or not the 60 months are consecutive), and:
(i) You worked in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), but switched after 1987 to either the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or the Foreign Service Pension System; or
(ii) You worked in the legislative branch and left CSRS after 1987 or received a lump sum payment from CSRS or another retirement system after 1987.
(8) You were a State or local government employee, or a Federal employee who worked in the CSRS but switched to the FERS before 1988, your last day of service was in covered employment, and
(i) You filed for spouse's benefits before April 1, 2004 and became entitled to benefits based on that filing, or
(ii) Your last day of service was before July 1, 2004,
(d)
(ii) If you earned part of your pension based on employment other than Federal, State, or local government employment, we will only use the part of your pension earned in government employment to compute the GPO.
(iii) If the reduction is not a multiple of 10 cents, we will round it to the next higher multiple of 10 cents.
(2)
(A) By the full amount of your pension for months before December 1984; and
(B) By two-thirds the amount of your monthly pension for months after November 1984.
(ii) If the reduction is not a multiple of 10 cents, we will round it to the next higher multiple of 10 cents.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) We will generally obtain information about the number of years covered by a lump-sum payment from the pension plan.
(ii) If one of the alternatives to a lump-sum payment is a life annuity, and we can determine the amount of the
(iii) If the period or the equivalent monthly pension benefit is not clear, we may determine the reduction period and the equivalent monthly benefit on an individual basis.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9719) that were published in the
This correction is effective on June 15, 2015 and applicable May 8, 2015.
Alexa T. Dubert at (202) 317–6895 (not a toll free number).
The final regulations (TD 9719) that are the subject of this correction is under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9719) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) amends its Privacy Act regulations for the system of records entitled “Giglio Information System, JUSTICE/DOJ–017.” Information in this system of records has been established to enable DOJ investigative agencies to collect and maintain records of potential impeachment information and to disclose such information to DOJ prosecuting offices in order to ensure that prosecutors receive sufficient information to meet their obligations under
Tricia Francis, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, FOIA/Privacy Staff, 600 E Street NW., Suite 7300, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile (202) 252–6047.
The Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940–2008, 28 CFR part 16 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.
(a) The Department of Justice, Giglio Information Files (JUSTICE/DOJ–017) system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k).
(b) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) because this subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d).
(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d).
(3) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system may interfere with or impede an ongoing investigation as it may be related to allegations against an agent or witness who is currently being investigated. Further, other records that are derivative of the subject's employing agency files may be accessed through the employing agency's files.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it may not be possible to determine in
(5) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information directly from the subject individual could serve notice that the individual is the subject of investigation and because of the nature of the records in this system, which are used to impeach or demonstrate bias of a witness, requires that the information be collected from others.
(6) From subsection (e)(3) because federal law enforcement officers receive notice from their supervisors and prosecuting attorneys that impeachment information may be used at trial. Law enforcement officers are also given notice by the
(7) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) because this system of records is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(8) From subsection (e)(5) because it may not be possible to determine in advance if all potential impeachment records collected and maintained in order to sufficiently meet the Department's
(9) From subsection (e)(8) because the nature of the
(10) From subsections (f) and (g) because these subsections are inapplicable to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in July 2015 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the third quarter of 2015. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective July 1, 2015.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for July 2015 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the third quarter (July through September) of 2015.
The third quarter 2015 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 2.32 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.37 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the second quarter of 2015, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.39 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.41 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
The July 2015 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for June 2015, these interest assumptions represent an increase of 0.50 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during July 2015, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action”
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations to replace the list of countries designated as supporting international terrorism with information on the availability of state sponsor of terrorism determination and rescission decisions in the
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622–6746, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202/622–4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622–2490, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
Section 321 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 2332d (the “Act”), makes it a criminal offense for United States persons, except as provided in regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to engage in financial transactions with the governments of countries designated under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j) (the “EAA”), as supporting international terrorism. To implement section 321 of the Act, OFAC promulgated the Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 596 (the “Regulations”), effective August 22, 1996. 61 FR 43462 (Aug. 23, 1996).
Section 596.201 of the Regulations provides that, except as authorized by regulations, orders, directives, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, no United States person, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated under section 6(j) of the EAA as a country supporting international terrorism, shall engage in a financial transaction with the government of such country. Since the promulgation of the Regulations, paragraph (b) of § 596.201 has listed those countries that are currently designated under section 6(j) (“state sponsors of terrorism”).
Upon a determination that a country should be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and also upon a rescission of such a determination, the State Department publishes the determination or rescission in the
Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505–0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banking, Blocking of assets, Cuba, Remittances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel restrictions.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking and finance, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism, Transfer of assets.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR parts 515 and 596 as set forth below:
22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001–6010, 7201–7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App 1–44; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (22 U.S.C. 6021–6091); Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 111–8, 123 Stat. 524; Pub. L. 111–117, 123 Stat. 3034; E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR, 1938–1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943–1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.
18 U.S.C. 2332d; 31 U.S.C. 321(b).
Except as authorized by regulations, orders, directives, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, no United States person, on or after the effective date, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405, as a country supporting international terrorism, shall engage in a financial transaction with the government of that country.
Note to § 596.201: The name of each country that has been designated under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405, as a country supporting international terrorism is published in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the Grand Trunk Western Railroad drawbridge at the mouth of Spring Lake, mile 0.2, at Grand Haven, Ottawa County, Michigan. The bridge was removed in 1982 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective June 15, 2015.
The docket for this final rule, [USCG–2015–0373] is available at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone (216) 902–6085, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Grand Trunk Western Railroad bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.633, was removed from the waterway in 1982. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
The Grand Trunk Western Railroad drawbridge at the mouth of Spring Lake, mile 0.2, was removed in 1982. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the removal of the bridge. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.633(d), that pertained to the former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove the section of 33 CFR 117.633 that refers to the Grand Trunk Western Railroad drawbridge at the mouth of Spring Lake, mile 0.2, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that has been removed.
The Coast Guard is amending the regulation in 33 CFR 117.633 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence. The amendment removes the paragraph of the regulation governing the Grand Trunk Western Railroad drawbridge since the bridge has been removed from the waterway. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that governs the operation of the Grand Trunk Western Railroad drawbridge, which in fact no longer exists. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.633 that governs the remaining active drawbridges on the Grand River.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be “significant” under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will have no effect on small entities since this drawbridge has been removed and the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded 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 rule involves amending 33 CFR 117.633 in the regulations to remove a drawbridge operating regulation for a drawbridge that no longer exists. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay in Cape Charles, Virginia. This safety zone will restrict vessel movement in the specified area during the fireworks display. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on the surrounding navigable waters during the fireworks display.
This rule is effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 1, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2015–0048]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Gregory Knoll, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 668–5580, email
The town of Cape Charles has not held a Clam Slam Fireworks display in the past. However, this same location is
The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM, which is addressed below in Section C. No request for a public meeting was received, and no meeting was held.
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.
The purpose of this safety zone is to protect the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay from hazards associated with a fireworks display. The potential hazards to mariners within the safety zone include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.
The Coast Guard received one comment that fully supported the proposed actions to put in place a safety zone for the Cape Charles Clam Slam Fireworks event.
The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads will establish a safety zone on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 350 yard radius of the center located near the shoreline at position 35°15′47″ N./076°01′29″ W. (NAD 1983), in the vicinity of Cape Charles Harbor in Cape Charles, Virginia. This safety zone will be enforced on August 1, 2015 between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times.
Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone during the time frame listed. The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice among the affected segments of the public. This will include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) This rule will only be enforced for the limited size and duration of the event; and (ii) the Coast Guard will make extensive notification to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in waters of the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Cape Charles Harbor during the enforcement period.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone is of limited size and duration, and (ii) Sector Hampton Roads will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Cape Charles Harbor allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.
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 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
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will 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 rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to 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
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34–(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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)
(1) All waters of the Chesapeake Bay within a 350 yard radius of the fireworks display in approximate position 37°15′47″ N., 076°01′29″ W. and 36°50′30.3678″ N., 076°16′39.936″ W., in the vicinity of Cape Charles Harbor in Cape Charles, Virginia.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
(3) All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668–5555.
(5) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF–FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(6) This section applies to all persons or vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
(7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Savannah River, in Savannah, GA. A stationary safety zone will be enforced around the BARGE SALONAN in the area of Buoy 52A, while the United States Navy commences dive and salvage operations to salvage CSS GEORGIA. A moving safety zone will be enforced while unexploded ordnance is salvaged and transited for disposal to Tide Gate Landing, approximately two mile transit from the salvage site. This regulation is necessary to protect life, and property on the navigable waters of the Savannah River due to the hazards associated with diving and salvage operations, and hazards associated with recovery and transportation of unexploded ordnance.
This rule is effective without actual notice from June 15, 2015 until
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2015–0434]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Christopher McElvaine, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (912) 652–4353 ext 221, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of planned salvage operations until May 15, 2015. Publishing a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect the United States Navy divers, TUG LITTLE BULLY, BARGE SALONAN, other vessels, and mariners from the hazards associated with the salvage of CSS GEORGIA and recovery and transport of unexploded ordnance from Savannah River.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of life and vessels on a navigable waterway of the United States during the salvage of CSS GEORGIA and recovery and transport of unexploded ordnance from Savannah River.
The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone to facilitate the safe salvage of CSS GEORGIA and recovery and transport of unexploded ordnance from the Savannah River. The salvage operations and recovery of unexploded ordnance pose a danger to other vessels that may meet, pass or attempt to overtake the BARGE SALONAN in the narrow waterway of the Savannah River. This safety zone is necessary to protect the safety of lives and persons during salvage and recovery operations.
A moving and fixed safety zone will be established when the United States Navy commences dive and salvage operations and during the recovery and river transits with unexploded ordnance. During dive and salvage operations, no vessel may pass within 100 yards of BARGE SALONAN in approximate position 32–05′02.6 N., 081–02′21.6 W. in the area of Buoy 52A, unless authorized by the COTP Savannah or designated representative, and during recovery and transit of unexploded ordnances, no other vessel may meet or pass within 500ft of the United States Navy small boat carrying the ordnance, unless authorized by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative.
Entry into the safety zone is prohibited for all vessels unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah or a designated representative. Coast Guard assets or designated representatives will enforce this safety zone, and coordinate vessel movements into the zone when safe to minimize the zone's impact on vessel movements. Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Savannah by telephone at (912) 652–4353, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
Due to fluctuations in tide and recovery operations based upon the best available information known at the time this rule was drafted, this rule is effective from June 22, 2015 until October 1, 2015. However, it will only be enforced during dive and salvage operations and transits of unexploded ordnance. The COTP Savannah or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement periods for this safety zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: This safety zone will only be enforced during times of diving operations and the recovery and transit of unexploded ordnance on the Savannah River. Once salvage operations have ceased, the safety zone will be terminated. Dive and salvage operations are only expected to take place during day light hours and are expected to last a few hours a day.
The Coast Guard has notified the Georgia Ports Authority and Savannah Pilots Association of the needs, conditions, and effective dates and times of the safety zone so that they may schedule arriving and departing vessels that may be affected by this safety zone to minimize shipping delays. The presence of other moored vessels is not expected to impede salvage operations, and sufficient channel width is anticipated while the dive and salvage operations are in effect so that other vessels may transit through the area.
Notifications of the enforcement periods of this safety zone will be made to the marine community through broadcast notice to mariners. Representatives of the COTP will be on-scene to coordinate the movements of vessels seeking to enter the safety zone. These representatives will authorize vessels to transit into the zone to the maximum safe allowable extent during salvage operations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Savannah River while salvage operations have commenced. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) The COTP Savannah may consider granting vessels permission to enter into the moving and fixed safety zone if conditions allow for such transit to be conducted safely, and (2) the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners informing the public of the safety zone.
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 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
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will 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 rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to 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 rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves the creation of a temporary safety zone. This
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones may contact the Captain of the Port Savannah by telephone at (912) 652–4353, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing certain waters of the Patapsco River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display launched from a barge located within the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, MD, on July 2, 2015. This safety zone is intended to protect the maritime public in a portion of the Patapsco River.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2015–0315]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 410–576–2674, email
On May 8, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River, Inner Harbor; Baltimore, MD” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05–1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a
The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held.
During the drafting of this rule, the Coast Guard became aware that the regulatory text published in the NPRM, describing the area of the safety zone as all waters of the Patapsco River within a 300 yards radius of a fireworks discharge barge, is not correct. The required area of the safety zone is less than that published in the NPRM. This rule corrects the area of the safety zone, as all waters of the Patapsco River within a 100 yards radius of a fireworks discharge barge.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and (iii) although the safety zone will apply to certain portions of the Inner Harbor, smaller vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard 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.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the enforcement period.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated under paragraph D.1., Regulatory Planning and Review.
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 rule. If the rule affects 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
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will 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 rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display. The fireworks are launched from navigable waters of the United States and may negatively impact the safety or other interests of waterway users and near shore activities in the event area. The activity includes fireworks launched from barges near the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer to protect the public from fireworks fallouts and premature detonations. This action is necessary to protect persons and property during the project. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410–576–2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.
(4)
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). These revisions consist of an update to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on July 15, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0652. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by email at
On March 10, 2015 (80 FR 12604), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of an update to the MVEBs, updates to the point and area source inventories, and general conformity budgets for the construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Pennsylvania on May 28, 2014.
Pennsylvania's SIP revisions revised the MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area to reflect the use of the MOVES model; made updates to the point and area source inventories; and established general conformity budgets for the construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant. A detailed discussion of the SIP revisions can be found in the SIP submittal, NPR, and technical support document (TSD) in this docket. The rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving an update to the MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area, updates to the point and area source inventories for NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action which approves an update to the MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Area, updates to the point and area source inventories, and general conformity budgets for the construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
3. Section 52.2043 is amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
(d) As of June 15, 2015, EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 point source inventory for nitrogen oxides (NO
(e) As of June 15, 2015, EPA approves the following revised 2018 area source inventory for nitrogen oxides (NO
(f) As of June 15, 2015, EPA approves the following general conformity budgets for 2009 and 2018 for nitrogen oxides (NO
4. Section 52.2052 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) As of June 15, 2015, EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of di-n-butyl carbonate (CAS Reg. No. 542–52–9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals, and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations in food-contact surfaces sanitizer products at a maximum level
This regulation is effective June 15, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0176, is available at
Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0176 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 14, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0176, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based on a review of the data submitted in support of this petition, EPA has modified the exemption requested by limiting the amount of di-n-butyl carbonoate allowed in food contact sanitizing solutions to a maximum 15,000 ppm (1.5%). This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for di-n-butyl carbonate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with di-n-butyl carbonate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by di-n-butyl carbonate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
Di-n-butyl carbonate acute toxicity testing indicate that it has low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity (acute oral and dermal LD
The NOAEL of di-n-butyl carbonate in rats is 500 mg/kg bw/day for parental animals (males and females) and 500 mg/kg bw/day for embryo-fetal toxicity. The LOAEL is 750 mg/kg bw/day based on decreased body weight gain in male and female paternal animals and embryo-fetal toxicity at 750 mg/kg bw/day as evidenced by increased pre- and post-implantation losses and decreased total number of pups.
If ingested di-n-butyl carbonate would be readily hydrolyzed by esterases in the gut to generate two molar equivalents of n-butanol and one molar equivalent of carbonic acid. EPA has stated for the n-butanol tolerance reassessment that once absorbed, n-butanol disappears rapidly from the blood. The carbonic acid rapidly dissociates into CO
Di-n-butyl carbonate was negative in an OCSPP Harmonized Test Guideline Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay (at concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 5,000 ug per plate); no positive mutagenic response was observed.
There are no carcinogenicity studies available for di-n-butyl carbonate. Based on predicted rapid metabolism and excretion, the lack of specific target organ toxicity in the OCSPP Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study, the results of genotoxicity testing being negative, and a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) expert model, DEREK Nexus, that indicates no structural alerts for carcinogenicity, di-n-butyl carbonate is not expected to be carcinogenic.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
No acute toxicological endpoints have been identified for di-n-butyl carbonate; therefore no acute exposure assessments are warranted.
The overall NOAEL for di-n-butyl carbonate was established at 500 mg/kg/day. The chronic risk assessment for di-n-butyl carbonate is based on this endpoint and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is therefore 5.0 mg/kg/day. The cRfD incorporates a 10X interspecies factor and a 10X intraspecies factor. Since the FQPA SF has been reduced to 1X, the cPAD is also 5.0 mg/kg/day.
1.
The Agency assessed the dietary exposures to di-n-butyl carbonate as an inert ingredient for use in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities, and livestock, as well as an inert ingredient for use in food-contact surface sanitizing solutions. In the case of dietary exposures to di-n-butyl carbonate as an inert ingredient used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities, and livestock, a chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM–FCID) TM, Version 3.16. EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for di-n-butyl carbonate. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at
In the case of the proposed use of di-n-butyl carbonate as an inert ingredient in food-contact sanitizing pesticide products, EPA has utilized a conservative, health-protective method of estimating dietary intake that is based upon conservative assumptions related to the amount of residues that can be transferred to foods as a result of the proposed use. This same methodology has been utilized by EPA in estimating dietary exposures to antimicrobial pesticides used in food-handling settings. A complete description of the approach used to assess dietary exposures resulting from food contact sanitizing solution uses of di-n-butyl carbonate can be found at
The exposures from food and food contact sanitizing are then added together for the final dietary exposure assessment.
2.
3.
There are no current or proposed residential uses for di-n-butyl carbonate; however, it is possible that di-n-butyl carbonate may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. A highly conservative residential exposure assessment was performed in which it was assumed that all residential use pesticide products would contain di-n-butyl carbonate as an inert ingredient. A complete description of the approach used to assess possible residential exposures from di-n-butyl carbonate can be found in
4.
EPA has not found di-n-butyl carbonate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and di-n-butyl carbonate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that di-n-butyl carbonate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for di-n-butyl carbonate summarize the studies included in the database. EPA concludes that these data are sufficient for assessing the effects of di-n-butyl carbonate on infants and children.
ii. There is no indication that di-n-butyl carbonate is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is some evidence that di-n-butyl carbonate results in increased susceptibility in rats, the degree of concern for these effects is low for the reasons explained in Unit IV.D.2.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues as well as conservative assumptions regarding exposures from food-contact sanitizer uses. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to di-n-butyl carbonate in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by di-n-butyl carbonate.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate short- and intermediate-term MOEs of 320 for adults and 100 for children (1–2 years old). EPA's level of concern for n-butyl benzoate is a MOE of 100 or below; however, these MOEs are not of concern based on the highly conservative assumptions made regarding residential and dietary exposures to n-butyl benzoate.
4.
5.
An analytical method for enforcement purposes is not required for di-n-butyl carbonate in pesticide formulations which include uses on crops for pre- and post-harvest, and on animals, since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
An analytical method is also not required for enforcement purposes for di-n-butyl carbonate on food-contact surfaces in antimicrobial applications since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of di-n-butyl carbonate in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of di-n-butyl carbonate that may be used in food-contact surface antimicrobial applications. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136
Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930, and 180.940(a) for di-n-butyl carbonate (CAS Reg. No. 542–52–9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals, and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations in food-contact surface sanitizer products at a maximum level in the end-use concentration of 15,000 ppm.
This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of sethoxydim in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes existing tolerances for residues of sethoxydim in or on several commodities identified later in this document that are superseded by this action. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective June 15, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0161, is available at
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0161 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 14, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0161, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has made certain modifications, including revising certain petitioned-for tolerance levels, setting meal tolerances for various oilseed crop subgroups to cover potential processed commodities, and updating crop definitions as well as the tolerance expression for sethoxydim to conform to current EPA policies. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . . ”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for sethoxydim including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sethoxydim follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Toxicological tests in animals (rats, mice, and dog) show that the target organ of sethodydim toxicity is the liver. Toxic effects are characterized by increased liver weight; hypertrophy; fatty degeneration; hepatocyte swelling; increased serum bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, aspartate
Findings other than liver toxicity were also observed. In a subchronic rat study, decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food efficiency were noted at a lower dose than liver toxicity. In a chronic dog toxicity study, increased hemosiderosis in the spleen and depressed myeloid erythropoiesis in the sternal bone marrow were observed. Interstitial fibrosis and heart failure cells in lung in female rats were observed in the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats.
In the developmental rat study, maternal toxicity was observed, as evidenced by an irregular gait, decreased activity, excessive salivation, and anogenital staining at a dose greater than half the limit dose and at the limit dose. All clinical signs reported were transient, with the exception of the anogenital staining, which did not reverse.
Developmental toxicity occurred at the same dose as maternal toxicity in rats and included decreased fetal weights, filamentous tail, and lack of tail due to the absence of sacral and/or caudal vertebrae, and delayed ossification in the hyoids, vertebral centrum and/or transverse processes, sternebrae and/or metatarsals, and pubes. No maternal toxicity was noted in rabbits at 400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)/day, and developmental toxicity was noted at 400 mg/kg/day (NOAEL = 320 mg/kg/day) as an increase in the incidence of incompletely ossified 6th sternebrae. In the reproduction study, no parental or reproductive toxicity was observed at 150 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested), but offspring toxicity was noted at this dose as decreased pup weight in the F
Dermal toxicity was not observed at the limit dose in a 21-day dermal study in rabbits. Based on the lack of sensitization in treated guinea pigs, sethoxydim is not a skin sensitizer. No eye or dermal irritation were noted in rabbits. No neurotoxicity or other toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested (207 mg/kg/day) in the subchronic neurotoxicity test in rats.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice, and no evidence of genotoxicity. Sethoxydim is classified as “
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for sethoxydim used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses. For acute dietary risk assessment for sethoxydim the following maximum PCT estimates were used: Alfalfa 2.5%; almonds 5%; apples 2.5%; apricots 10%; artichokes 2.5%; asparagus 10%; beans, green 15%; blueberries 10%; broccoli 5%; cabbage 10%; caneberries 10%; canola 2.5%; cantaloupes 25%; carrots 5%; cauliflower 10%; celery 2.5%; cherries 2.5%; corn 2.5%; cotton 2.5%; cucumbers 10%; dry beans/peas 35%; eggplant 10%; fallow 2.5%; garlic 5%; grapefruit 2.5%; grapes 5%; hazelnuts 2.5%; lettuce 10%; oats 2.5%; onions 15%; oranges 5%; peaches 2.5%; peanuts 10%; pears 2.5%; peas, green 15%; pecans 2.5%; peppers 15%; pistachios 2.5%; plums/prunes 2.5%; potatoes 5%; pumpkins 10%; soybeans 2.5%; spinach 2.5%; squash 10%; strawberries 10%; sugar beets 5%; sunflowers 10%; sweet corn 5%; tobacco 10%; tomatoes 5%; walnuts 5%; watermelons 20%; wheat 2.5%.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the following average PCT estimates for sethoxydim were used: Alfalfa 1%; almonds 2.5%; apples 1%; apricots 2.5%; artichokes 2.5%; asparagus 5%; beans, green 10%; blueberries 5%; broccoli 2.5%; cabbage 5%; caneberries 5%; canola 2.5%; cantaloupes 5%; carrots 2.5%; cauliflower 5%; celery 2.5%; cherries 2.5%; corn 1%; cotton 1%; cucumbers 5%; dry beans/peas 30%; eggplant 5%; fallow 1%; garlic 2.5%; grapefruit 2.5%; grapes 2.5%; hazelnuts 2.5%; lettuce 2.5%; oats 1%; onions 5%; oranges 2.5%; peaches 1%; peanuts 5%; pears 2.5%; peas, green 5%; pecans 2.5%; peppers 5%; pistachios 1%; plums/prunes 1%; potatoes 2.5%; pumpkins 5%; soybeans 1%; spinach 2.5%; squash 5%; strawberries 2.5%; sugar beets 2.5%; sunflowers 5%; sweet corn 2.5%; tobacco 5%; tomatoes 2.5%; walnuts 2.5%; watermelons 10%; wheat 1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which Sethoxydim may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) Surface Water Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106), Surface Water Provisional Cranberry Model and Tier 1 mode of the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sethoxydim for acute exposures are estimated to be 79.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.565 ppb for ground water.
For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 13.9 ppb for surface water and 0.51 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 79.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 13.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Sethoxydim is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf (including lawns, golf courses, recreational parks, and sod farms) and ornamentals. Short-term exposure to sethoxydim may occur via the dermal and inhalation routes for adults using sethoxydim products in residential settings. Since no dermal hazard was identified, only inhalation exposures were assessed for residential applicators. In addition, children may potentially be exposed orally in post-application turf scenarios. Intermediate- or long-term exposures are not expected due to the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Since no dermal hazard was identified in the toxicity database for sethoxydim, a quantitative residential post-application dermal risk assessment is not required and was not completed. Post-application inhalation exposures while performing activities in previously treated turf or ornamentals are not expected, primarily due to the very low vapor pressure (1.6 × 10
For the residential turf use scenario, post-application incidental oral exposure is assessed for children (1 to < 2 years old as the sentinel population). The turf use site assessed was residential lawn turf as exposures from that use are expected to be higher than any potential exposures from other
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found sethoxydim to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and sethoxydim does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sethoxydim does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for sethoxydim is complete.
ii. There was no clear evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the available studies, which include a subchronic neurotoxicity study. The acute neurotoxicity study and developmental neurotoxicity study requirements have been waived.
iii. There is evidence that sethoxydim results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary exposure estimates were partially refined by incorporation of percent of crop treated assumptions; however, tolerance-level residue in food and upper-bound drinking water estimates based on modeling were used which are conservative assumptions. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children, as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sethoxydim.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Sethoxydim is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to sethoxydim. The short-term aggregate assessment for children 1–2 years old, the most exposed subpopulation group, includes post-application oral residential exposures from treated turf and chronic dietary exposure.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 4,000 that are below the EPA's level of concern for sethoxydim.
4.
Because there is no intermediate-term exposure, sethoxydim is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
5.
6.
An adequate gas chromatography/flame photometric detection GC/FPD method is available (Method I in PAM Vol. II) for determining the combined residues of sethoxydim and its metabolites containing the 3-alkyl substituted pentanedioic acid moiety in plant and livestock commodities which provides a 0.05 ppm limit of quantitation (LOQ).
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
There are no Codex MRLs established for the residues of sethoxydim in/on raw agricultural or processed commodities.
One comment was received from a private citizen objecting to establishment of petitioned-for tolerances for residues of sethoxydim and a number of other pesticides on food items as these are “dangerous chemicals” and children are disproportionately exposed to health risks from their use. In addition, the commenter expressed concern about the potential for increased cancer rates in children due to pesticide exposures. The Agency understands the commenters' concerns regarding chemicals and their potential effects on humans. Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, and as discussed further in this preamble, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of sethoxydim, which included an assessment on the carcinogenic potential of sethoxydim. Based on its assessment of the available data, EPA has found that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans, with special emphases on infants and children sensitivity, from aggregate exposure to sethoxydim based on a complete toxicological database and the potential exposure levels.
The tolerance for the bushberry subgroup 13–07B is based on the residue data on blueberry, the representative crop at 4.0 ppm and not the previously established tolerances for juneberry, lingonberry, and salal at 5.0 ppm. The juneberry, lingonberry, and salal tolerances were based on the translation of caneberry data, which are no longer relevant to these crops following updated crop grouping realignment. Moreover, EPA has determined that available data support a reduction in sethoxydim residue tolerance level for these crops from 5.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm.
Based on available data and the application of the OECD calculation procedures, EPA is establishing a tolerance of 7.0 ppm for fescue, forage, rather than 6.0 ppm as requested by the petitioner. This difference stems from the conclusion that only 4 independent grass trials were conducted instead of 5 (as assumed by IR–4).
In addition, for the requested rapeseed subgroup 20A and sunflower subgroup 20B crop group conversions, each RAC could potentially be processed into meal. Therefore, following the established meal tolerance of the representative crop, canola meal at 40 ppm for subgroup 20A and sunflower meal at 20 ppm for subgroup 20B, tolerances for the residues of sethoxydim are also required for translation to the following commodities: Calendula, meal at 20 ppm; castor oil plant, meal at 20 ppm; Chinese tallowtree, meal at 20 ppm; cuphea, meal at 40 ppm; echium, meal 40 ppm; euphoriba, meal at 20 ppm; evening primrose, meal at 20 ppm; flax seed, meal at 40 ppm; hare's ear mustard, meal at 40 ppm; jojoba, meal at 20 ppm; lesquerella, meal at 40 ppm; lunaria, meal at 40 ppm; meadowfoam, meal at 40 ppm; milkweed, meal at 40 ppm; mustard, meal at 40 ppm; niger seed, meal at 20 ppm; oil radish, meal at 40 ppm; poppy seed, meal at 40 ppm; rose hip, meal at 20 ppm; sesame, meal at 40 ppm; stokes aster, meal at 20 ppm; sweet rocket, meal at 40 ppm; tallowwood, meal at 20 ppm; tea oil plant, meal at 20 ppm; and vernonia, meal at 20 ppm. Additionally, an existing borage, meal tolerance at 10 ppm is being raised to 40 ppm.
Lastly, the Agency is updating the tolerance expressions for sethoxydim as follows to reflect current EPA policies: Tolerances are established for the herbicide sethoxydim, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of the herbicide 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one (CAS Reg. No. 74051–80–2) and its metabolites containing the 2-cyclohexen-1-one moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sethoxydim, in or on the commodities listed in the subsections.
Establishing a tolerance at 4.0 ppm for the expanded crop subgroup 13–07B results in reductions of the existing sethoxydim tolerance level for juneberry, lingonberry, and salal, which are each set individually at 5.0 ppm. In order to allow a reasonable interval for producers in the exporting member countries of the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements of these modified tolerances, EPA is establishing an expiration date for those higher individual tolerances (for juneberry, lingonberry, and salal) of December 15, 2015. Those tolerances will remain in place for six months after the publication of this rule—and residues of sethoxydim may be present on juneberry, lingonberry, and salal at levels up to 5.0 ppm until their
Tolerances are established for the herbicide sethoxydim, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of the herbicide 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one (CAS Reg. No. 74051–80–2) and its metabolites containing the 2-cyclohexen-1-one moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sethoxydim, in or on commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07H, except strawberry at 2.5 ppm; borage, meal at 40 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13–07B at 4.0 ppm; calendula, meal at 20 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13–07A at 5.0 ppm; castor oil plant, meal at 20 ppm; Chinese tallowtree, meal at 20 ppm; cottonseed, subgroup 20C at 5.0 ppm; cuphea, meal at 40 ppm; echium, meal 40 ppm; euphorbia, meal at 20 ppm; evening primrose, meal at 20 ppm; fescue, forage at 7.0 ppm; fescue, hay at 4.0 ppm; flax seed, meal at 40 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 0.2 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13–07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit at 1.0 ppm; hare's ear mustard, meal at 40 ppm; jojoba, meal at 20 ppm; lesquerella, meal at 40 ppm; lunaria, meal at 40 ppm; meadowfoam, meal at 40 ppm; milkweed, meal at 40 ppm; mustard, meal at 40 ppm; niger seed, meal at 20 ppm; oil radish, meal at 40 ppm; poppy seed, meal at 40 ppm; rapeseed, subgroup 20A at 35 ppm; rose hip, meal at 20 ppm; sesame, meal at 40 ppm; stokes aster, meal at 20 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B, except safflower at 7.0 ppm; sweet rocket, meal at 40 ppm; tallowwood, meal at 20 ppm; tea oil plant, meal at 20 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3–07 at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 to 4.0 ppm; and vernonia, meal at 20 ppm. In addition, upon establishment of the above tolerances, remove the following entries that are superseded by this action including: Blueberry; borage, seed; caneberry subgroup 13A; canola, seed; cotton, undelinted seed; crambe, seed; cranberry; cuphea, seed; echium, seed; flax, seed; fruit, citrus group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; gold of pleasure, seed; grape; hare's ear mustard, seed; lesquerella, seed; lunaria, seed; meadowfoam, seed; milkweed, seed; mustard, seed; oil radish, seed; okra; poppy, seed; rapeseed, seed; sesame, seed; sunflower, seed; sweet rocket, seed; vegetable, bulb group 3; and vegetable, fruiting group 8.
Finally, the individual tolerances for juneberry, lingonberry, and salal at 5.0 ppm will expire 6 months from the date of publication of this final rule in the
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) Tolerances are established for the herbicide sethoxydim, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
(b)
(c)
(d)
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 111, redesignate section 216.405–270 as section 216.405–2–70.
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 117, in section 217.171, redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(C)(2) as paragraph (c)(2)(i).
(a) * * *
(6) 10 U.S.C. 7317.
(7) 17 U.S.C. 1301,
Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise and amend the regulations at 7 CFR 1493 subpart C used to administer the Facility Guarantee Program (FGP). Changes in this proposed rule incorporate statutory changes from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and modifications intended to reduce burden on participants and improve program efficiency and effectiveness. Certain revisions will ensure the FGP is operated in compliance with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits. Additionally, this proposed rule incorporates significant changes made to the regulations for the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), that are also applicable to the FGP.
Comments concerning this proposed rule must be received by August 14, 2015 to be assured consideration.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Amy Slusher, Deputy Director, Credit Programs Division, by phone at (202) 720–6211, or by email at:
The Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) Facility Guarantee Program (FGP) is administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of CCC, pursuant to program regulations codified at 7 CFR part 1493; through the issuance of “Program Announcements” and “Notices to Participants” that are consistent with this program regulation; and in compliance with the requirements of the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Under the FGP, CCC provides payment guarantees to facilitate the financing of manufactured goods and U.S. services to improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets. By supporting such facilities, the FGP is designed to enhance sales of U.S. Agricultural Commodities and products to emerging markets where the demand for such commodities and products may be limited due to inadequate storage, processing, handling, or distribution capabilities for such products.
The current FGP regulations became effective on August 8, 1997. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–246) (2008 Act) modified the program by including a “construction waiver” that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to waive requirements related to the use of U.S. goods in the construction of a proposed facility if the Secretary determines that “(A) goods from the United States are not available; or (B) the use of goods from the United States is not practicable.”
On August 6, 2009, CCC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
On November 18, 2014, CCC published a final rule for the Export Credit Guarantee (GSM–102) Program, found at 7 CFR 1493 subpart B. The GSM–102 and FGP Programs are similarly structured and many of the same requirements apply. For this reason, CCC completed the rulemaking process for the GSM–102 program prior to issuing this proposed rule so that relevant GSM–102 program changes could be incorporated into the FGP. The affected provisions include (but are not limited to) information and certifications required for program participation, letter of credit requirements, terms and requirements of the payment guarantee, assignments, notice of default and claims for default, payments and recoveries, additional obligations and requirements, dispute resolution and appeals, and miscellaneous provisions. Explanations of the changes incorporated in both the GSM–102 and FGP regulations can be found in the following documents:
GSM–102 Proposed Rule (July 27, 2011):
GSM–102 Proposed Rule (December 27, 2013):
GSM–102 Final Rule (November 18, 2014):
Key changes in the proposed rule are discussed below by topic. The numbering system of this proposed rule
The 2008 Act contains a “construction waiver” that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to waive requirements related to the use of U.S. goods in the construction of a proposed facility if the Secretary determines that “(A) goods from the United States are not available; or (B) the use of goods from the United States is not practicable.”
To implement this provision, CCC proposes to permit a Seller to request a Coverage Waiver in the application for Payment Guarantee. As described in § 1493.290(f)(1), the Seller may request a Coverage Waiver to allow for coverage of non-U.S. Goods or to waive the U.S. Content Test. The U.S. Content Test states that CCC will issue a Payment Guarantee only if the value of Eligible Non-U.S. Goods and Eligible Imported Components are less than 50 percent of the sum of the Net Contract Value plus the value of approved Local Costs. CCC included criteria in § 1493.290(f)(2) that will be the basis for CCC to issue a Coverage Waiver. A Seller must rely on one or more of these criteria as the basis for justifying a Coverage Waiver. By allowing the Seller to request a waiver and obtain coverage of non-U.S. Goods and/or imported components, CCC intends to provide maximum flexibility in approving goods, services and projects that will meet the requirement to primarily promote the export of U.S. Agricultural Commodities.
CCC proposes to expand the current Payment Guarantee application process. This change is designed to reduce the burden on the Seller by allowing the Seller to supply information to CCC in stages and obtain conditional approval before moving to the next step of the application process. It also may expedite the application process by allowing CCC to focus its time on proposals meeting FGP criteria.
In § 1493.260(a), CCC added an optional “letter of interest.” Prior to submitting an initial application for a Payment Guarantee, the Seller may choose to submit a letter of interest to CCC describing a proposed transaction. CCC will review information submitted and provide preliminary feedback on whether the proposed transaction may be eligible for FGP coverage. In doing so, CCC hopes to reduce the burden on participants by ruling out ineligible projects prior to the Seller providing in-depth information required in the Payment Guarantee application. A short letter of interest form will be available on the FAS Web site and must be accompanied by a non-refundable fee that will be deducted from the final guarantee fee if the application results in a payment guarantee.
The first required step in the application process is the submission of the initial application. Information submitted with the initial application will include the details of the proposed export, project or facility as specified in § 1493.260(b), including a description of all goods and services for which coverage is sought and information about environmental impact. If applicable, the Seller will also request a Coverage Waiver. This stage of the application process will require an in-depth review and analysis by FAS to determine whether the proposal meets requirements for coverage. To avoid tying up the Seller's full guarantee fee during this time, CCC will not require the guarantee fee with the initial application. Instead, the Seller must submit a non-refundable initial application fee. If CCC determines to issue a Payment Guarantee for the transaction, this fee will be deducted from the final guarantee fee. Both the letter of intent and initial application fees are designed to ensure that the Seller is serious about the particular transaction and the associated Payment Guarantee before FAS expends resources on review and analysis.
CCC will review the information submitted in the initial application and determine whether to approve the application as is or with amendments, and also whether to grant any requested coverage waiver. If CCC approves the initial application, the Seller will have 30 calendar days in which to submit information in a final application (§ 1493.260(c)). The Seller needs CCC's feedback on the initial application to determine most of the elements in the final application. CCC will require the Seller to submit the full guarantee fee (less the letter of interest and initial application fees) with the final application.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended, allows for the provision of export credit guarantees for “(A) the establishment or improvement of facilities, or (B) the provision of services or United States products goods, in emerging markets by United States persons to improve handling, marketing, processing, storage, or distribution of imported agricultural commodities and products thereof
CCC determined that this requirement is too burdensome on Sellers whose expertise is more likely in constructing facilities or exporting equipment than in agricultural commodities. CCC modified the requirements of the Application for Payment Guarantee (§ 1493.260(b)(7)) to now require the Seller to provide only a list of agricultural commodities or products to be used by the proposed project and a description of how the goods and/or Services will specifically benefit exporters of U.S. Agricultural Commodities. As part of the application review process, FAS will perform an analysis to determine whether the proposed project will primarily benefit U.S. Agricultural Commodity exporters. FAS will reach out to other areas of USDA and to relevant commodity organizations, state/regional trade groups, and exporters, as needed, for assistance in collecting data and conducting this analysis.
To reduce the burden on program participants, CCC proposes to ease or eliminate FGP qualification requirements on certain participants already qualified to participate in the GSM–102 Program. In accordance with § 1493.220(c), Sellers who are qualified exporters under the GSM–102 program will only be required to submit additional information specific to the FGP in order to qualify as a Seller under the FGP. U.S. Financial Institutions qualified under the GSM–102 program are automatically qualified to participate in the FGP.
Due to the longer tenors and corresponding higher risk under the FGP, Foreign Financial Institutions will be required to apply separately for participation, even if already qualified under the GSM–102 Program. As explained in § 1493.240, CCC will establish specific dollar participation
The United States is a participant in the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (“the Arrangement”). The Arrangement seeks to foster a level playing field for official export credits and applies “to all official support provided by or on behalf of a government for export of goods and/or services, including financial leases, which have a repayment term of two years or more.” All FGP activity with a repayment term of two years or more, therefore, must comply with the provisions of the Arrangement. The Arrangement is updated periodically by OECD Participants. The most recent version can be found at
Aspects of the FGP that are governed by the Arrangement include, but are not limited to, the following:
The OECD Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence provides guidelines for addressing environmental and social issues related to exports of capital goods and/or services and the location for which they are destined. The primary purpose of these guidelines is to encourage OECD members to prevent and mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts of projects receiving official support. To support this goal, the OECD provides guidelines for screening applications for official support.
CCC will screen all FGP Payment Guarantee applications for any negative environmental and social impact. In accordance with § 1493.260(b), Sellers must submit a completed environmental screening document with each initial application for a Payment Guarantee. The screening document will be available on the USDA Web site. CCC will review the screening document to determine whether the transaction is likely to have significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts. If CCC determines that a transaction has potential adverse impact, the transaction will be subject to an in-depth environmental and social review. CCC may reject an application based on the results of this review.
The Arrangement prescribes minimum fees to be charged based on country risk, obligor risk, tenor, percentage of cover, and other factors. Guarantee fees for the FGP will be available on the USDA Web site and will be consistent with rules of the Arrangement.
The Arrangement requires a minimum downpayment to be made by the Buyer prior to the start of the credit. The minimum amount of the required Initial Payment (as a percentage of the Net Contract Value) will be available on the USDA Web site. The current requirement under the Arrangement is 15 percent.
The Arrangement prescribes a limit on the maximum amount of official support for local costs. Local Costs are defined in § 1493.210 as “expenditures for goods in the Destination Country that are necessary for executing the Firm Sales Contract and that are within scope of the Firm Sales Contract.” CCC will consider providing coverage for Local Costs within the limits of the Arrangement, but because Local Costs are non-U.S. Goods, the Seller must also request and receive from CCC a Coverage Waiver for these costs. The maximum amount of Local Costs permitted (as a percentage of the Net Contract Value) will be available on the USDA Web site. The current maximum under the Arrangement is 30 percent.
Maximum tenor (repayment term) under the Arrangement is determined by country of destination. Maximum tenors under FGP will be available on the USDA Web site and may be less than prescribed by the Arrangement as determined appropriate by CCC.
This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866. It has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by OMB. A cost-benefit assessment of this rule was not completed.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This proposed rule would not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this proposed rule. Before any judicial action may be brought concerning the provisions of this proposed rule, the appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 1493.200 would need to be exhausted. This rulemaking would not be retroactive.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this proposed rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, nor does this proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
The United States has a unique relationship with Indian Tribes as provided in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, and Federal statutes. On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed a Memorandum emphasizing his commitment to “regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.” This proposed rule has been reviewed for compliance with E.O. 13175 and CCC worked directly with the Office of Tribal Relations in the rule's development. The policies contained in this proposed rule do not have tribal implications that preempt tribal law.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
CCC has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a major State or Federal action that would significantly affect the human or natural environment. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act
This proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CCC is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a proposed revision to the currently approved information collection for this program. This revision includes the proposed change in information collection activities related to the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.
Comments on this information collection may be submitted to CCC in accordance with the instructions for submitting comments to this proposed rule. All comments received in response to this notice will be a matter of public record.
CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services and for other purposes. The forms, regulations, and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this rule are available at:
Agricultural commodities, Exports.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, CCC proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1493 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 5602, 5622, 5661–5664, 5676; 15 U.S.C. 714b(d), 714c(f).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Terms set forth in this part, on the USDA Web site (including in Program Announcements and notices to participants), and in any CCC-originated documents pertaining to the FGP will have the following meanings:
(1) The project meets the U.S. Content Test in § 1493.290(e); or
(2) A Coverage Waiver of the U.S. Content Test has been requested by the Seller and approved by CCC.
(1) The amount calculated using the interest rate agreed by the Holder of the Payment Guarantee and the Foreign Financial Institution; or
(2) The amount calculated using the specified percentage of the Treasury bill investment rate set forth on the face of the Payment Guarantee.
(1) Date of sale;
(2) A complete description of all goods associated with the project. For goods to be covered by the Payment Guarantee, include the brand name and model number, country where the good was manufactured and country from which the good will be exported (if applicable), quantity, value, and Incoterms (if applicable);
(3) A complete description of all Services associated with the project. For Services to be covered by the Payment
(4) The Date of Performance of each Contractual Event; and
(5) The date and evidence of agreement between Buyer and Seller.
(1) Organized and licensed under the laws of a jurisdiction outside the United States;
(2) Not domiciled in the United States; and
(3) Subject to the banking or other financial regulatory authority of a foreign jurisdiction (except for multilateral and sovereign institutions).
(1) (i) An agricultural commodity or product entirely produced in the United States; or
(ii) A product of an agricultural commodity—
(A) 90 percent or more of the agricultural components of which by weight, excluding packaging and added water, is entirely produced in the United States; and
(B) That the Secretary determines to be a high value agricultural product.
(2) For purposes of this definition, fish entirely produced in the United States include fish harvested by a documented fishing vessel as defined in title 46, United States Code, in waters that are not waters (including the territorial sea) of a foreign country.
(1) Organized and licensed under the laws of a jurisdiction within the United States;
(2) Domiciled in the United States; and
(3) Subject to the banking or other financial regulatory authority jurisdiction within the United States.
(1) An individual who is a citizen or legal resident of the United States; or
(2) An entity constituted or organized in the United States, including any corporation, trust partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, or other association with business activities in the United States.
(1) The price stipulated in the Firm Sales Contract or, if such price is not available;
(2) The declared customs value or, if the customs value is not available; then
(3) The fair market wholesale value in the United States.
Sellers must apply and be approved by CCC to be eligible to participate in the FGP.
(a)
(1) For the applicant:
(i) The name and full U.S. address (including the full 9-digit zip code) of the applicant's office, along with an indication of whether the address is a business or private residence. A post office box is not an acceptable address. If the applicant has multiple offices, the address included in the information should be that which is pertinent to the FGP sales contemplated by the applicant;
(ii) Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number;
(iii) Employer Identification Number (EIN—also known as a Federal Tax Identification Number);
(iv) Telephone and fax numbers;
(v) Email address (if applicable);
(vi) Business Web site (if applicable);
(vii) Contact name;
(viii) Statement indicating whether the applicant is a U.S. domestic entity or a foreign entity domiciled in the United States; and
(ix) The form of business entity of the applicant, (
(2) For the applicant's headquarters office:
(i) The name and full address of the applicant's headquarters office (a post office box is not an acceptable address); and
(ii) Telephone and fax numbers.
(3) For the applicant's agent for the service of process:
(i) The name and full U.S. address of the applicant's agent's office, along with an indication of whether the address is a business or private residence;
(ii) Telephone and fax numbers;
(iii) Email address (if applicable); and
(iv) Contact name.
(4) A description of the applicant's business. Applicants must provide the following information:
(i) Nature of the applicant's business (
(ii) Explanation of the applicant's experience/history selling the goods or Services to be sold under the FGP, including number of years involved in selling, types of goods or Services sold, and destination of sales for the preceding three years;
(iii) Whether or not the applicant is a “small or medium enterprise” (SME) as defined on the USDA Web site.
(5) A listing of any related companies (
(6) A statement describing the applicant's participation, if any, during the past three years in U.S. Government programs, contracts or agreements; and
(7) A statement that: “All certifications set forth in 7 CFR 1493.250(a) are hereby made in this application” which, when included in the application, will constitute a certification that the applicant is in compliance with all of the requirements set forth in § 1493.250(a). The applicant will be required to provide further explanation or documentation if not in compliance with these requirements or if the application does not include this statement.
(b)
(c)
(d)
U.S. Financial Institutions must apply and be approved by CCC to be eligible to participate in the FGP.
(a)
(1) Legal name and address of the applicant;
(2) Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number;
(3) Employer Identification Number (EIN—also known as a Federal Tax Identification Number);
(4) Year-end audited financial statements for the applicant's most recent fiscal year;
(5) Breakdown of the applicant's ownership as follows:
(i) Ten largest individual shareholders and ownership percentages;
(ii) Percentage of government ownership, if any; and
(iii) Identity of the legal entity or person with ultimate control or decision making authority, if other than the majority shareholder.
(6) Organizational structure (independent, or a subsidiary, Affiliate, or branch of another financial institution);
(7) Documentation from the applicable United States Federal or State agency demonstrating that the applicant is either licensed or chartered to do business in the United States;
(8) Name of the agency that regulates the applicant and the name and telephone number of the primary contact for such regulator; and
(9) A statement that: “All certifications set forth in 7 CFR 1493.250 are hereby made in this application” which, when included in the application, will constitute a certification that the applicant is in compliance with all of the requirements set forth in § 1493.250. The applicant will be required to provide further explanation or documentation if not in compliance with these requirements or if the application does not include this statement.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Foreign Financial Institutions must apply and be approved by CCC to be eligible to participate in the FGP.
(a)
(1) Legal name and address of the applicant;
(2) Year-end, audited financial statements in accordance with the accounting standards established by the applicant's regulators, in English, for the applicant's three most recent fiscal years. If the applicant is not subject to a banking or other financial regulatory authority, year-end, audited financial statements in accordance with prevailing accounting standards, in English, for the applicant's three most recent fiscal years;
(3) Breakdown of applicant's ownership as follows:
(i) Ten largest individual shareholders and ownership percentages;
(ii) Percentage of government ownership, if any; and
(iii) Identity of the legal entity or person with ultimate control or decision making authority, if other than the majority shareholder.
(4) Organizational structure (independent, or a subsidiary, Affiliate, or branch of another legal entity);
(5) Name of foreign government agency that regulates the applicant; and
(6) A statement that: “All certifications set forth in 7 CFR 1493.250 are hereby made in this application” which, when included in the application, will constitute a certification that the applicant is in compliance with all of the requirements set forth in § 1493.250. The applicant will be required to provide further explanation or documentation if not in compliance with these requirements or if the application does not include this statement.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) May be deemed ineligible to participate in the FGP if such applicant cannot provide all of the information and certifications required in § 1493.240(a); and
(2) Will be deemed ineligible to participate in the FGP if, based upon information submitted by the applicant or other publicly available sources, CCC determines that the applicant cannot adequately service the debt associated with the Payment Guarantees issued by CCC.
(a) When making the statement required by §§ 1493.220(a)(7), 1493.230(a)(9), or 1493.240(a)(6), each Seller, U.S. Financial Institution and Foreign Financial Institution applicant for program participation is certifying that, to the best of its knowledge and belief:
(1) The applicant and any of its principals (as defined in 2 CFR 180.995) or affiliates (as defined in 2 CFR 180.905) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or excluded from covered transactions by any U.S. Federal department or agency;
(2) The applicant and any of its principals (as defined in 2 CFR 180.995) or affiliates (as defined in 2 CFR 180.905) have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(3) The applicant and any of its principals (as defined in 2 CFR 180.995) or affiliates (as defined in 2 CFR 180.905) are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(4) The applicant and any of its principals (as defined in 2 CFR 180.995) or affiliates (as defined in 2 CFR 180.905) have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default;
(5) The applicant does not have any outstanding nontax debt to the United States that is in delinquent status as provided in 31 CFR 285.13;
(6) The applicant is not controlled by a person owing an outstanding nontax debt to the United States that is in delinquent status as provided in 31 CFR 285.13 (
(7) The applicant does not control a person owing an outstanding nontax debt to the United States that is in delinquent status as provided in 31 CFR 285.13 (
(b)
(1) The applicant and its Principals are in compliance with all requirements, restrictions and guidelines as established by the applicant's regulators; and
(2) All U.S. operations of the applicant and its U.S. Principals are in compliance with U.S. anti-money laundering and terrorist financing statutes including, but not limited to, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.
(a)
(b)
(1) Destination Country.
(2) The name and address of the Buyer. If the Buyer is not physically located in the Destination Country or region, it must have a Buyer's Representative in the Destination Country or region taking receipt of the goods and Services covered by the Payment Guarantee. If applicable, provide the name and address of the Buyer's Representative.
(3) The name and address of the party on whose request the Letter of Credit is issued, if other than the Buyer.
(4) The name and address of the end-user of the goods or Services, if other than the Buyer.
(5) The Seller's sales number pertinent to the application and a copy of the Firm Sales Contract.
(6) A description (including location,
(7) List of all agricultural commodities or products (inputs) to be handled, marketed, processed, stored, or distributed by the proposed project after completion, and an explanation of why and how the facility or goods and/or Services will specifically benefit exporters of U.S. Agricultural Commodities.
(8) Total value of the Firm Sales Contract.
(9) A full description of each good to be covered by the Payment Guarantee. The goods specified in the Seller's application for the Payment Guarantee must correspond with the description of the goods specified in the Firm Sales Contract and the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit. The description must include each of the following:
(i) Brand name and model number;
(ii) Applicable 10-digit Harmonized System classification code;
(iii) Description of the good;
(iv) Country where the good was manufactured and from which the good will be exported;
(v) For U.S. goods, the Value of imported Components used in the U.S. good's manufacture;
(vi) For goods that are Local Costs, the name of the local supplier;
(vii) Quantity;
(viii) Value of the good; and
(ix) Incoterms (if the sale of the goods is based on Incoterms delivery).
(10) A full description of each U.S. Service to be covered by the Payment Guarantee. The U.S. Services specified in the Seller's application for the Payment Guarantee must correspond with the description of the U.S. Services specified in the Firm Sales Contract and the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit. The description must include each of the following:
(i) Description of the U.S. Service;
(ii) Supplier of the U.S. Service;
(iii) Cost of the U.S. Service; and
(iv) NAICS classification number.
(11) A description and Date of Performance of each Contractual Event, as specified in the Firm Sales Contract.
(12) Indication of whether a Coverage Waiver is requested in accordance with § 1493.290(f). If a Coverage Waiver is requested, the applicant must indicate the nature of the waiver requested per § 1493.290(f)(1) and provide the justification and explanation required by § 1493.290(f)(2).
(13) Name and location of the Foreign Financial Institution issuing the Letter of Credit and, upon request by CCC, written evidence that the Foreign Financial Institution has agreed to issue the Letter of Credit.
(14) The term length of the credit being extended and the intervals between principal payments for each Contractual Event under the Payment Guarantee.
(15) If applicable, a description of any arrangements or understandings with other U.S. or foreign government agencies, or with financial institutions or entities, private or public, providing guarantees or financing to the Seller or other competing sellers in connection with this sale, whether or not the goods or Services are of U.S. origin or would otherwise qualify for a Payment Guarantee under this subpart. Copies of any documents relating to such arrangements must be provided.
(16) A statement of how this project may encourage privatization of the agricultural sector, or benefit private farms or cooperatives, in the Destination Country. Include in the statement the share of any private sector ownership of the project.
(17) An estimate of how many U.S. Persons will be or have been hired because of the Firm Sales Contract and/or how many U.S Persons are required to fulfill the Firm Sales Contract.
(18) FGP tracking number assigned to previously submitted letter of interest, if applicable.
(c)
(1) An initial application may receive conditional approval from CCC as submitted, be conditionally approved with modifications agreed to by the Seller, or be rejected by CCC. CCC's review will include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
(i) CCC will only consider an initial application in connection with a transaction that CCC determines will benefit primarily exports of U.S. Agricultural Commodities.
(ii) If, based upon a price review, the unit sales price of any good(s) and/or Service(s) does not fall within the prevailing commercial market level ranges, as determined by CCC, the initial application will not be approved as submitted.
(iii) All initial applications submitted will be screened to determine their potential environmental and social impacts. Any application determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts will be subject to an environmental and social review consistent with the provisions of the OECD Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence. CCC may reject an initial application for Payment Guarantee based on the results of this environmental and social review.
(2) Once CCC indicates its approval of the initial application to the Seller, the Seller must submit a final application as specified in paragraph (d) of this section before CCC will make a final determination of whether to issue a Payment Guarantee.
(d)
(1) FGP tracking number assigned by CCC.
(2) Destination country.
(3) The name and address of the Buyer.
(4) A description of each good and U.S. Service, along with the Value of the Good and Cost of the Service, for which guarantee coverage is requested, based on CCC's feedback on the Seller's initial application. If CCC approved a coverage waiver to provide guarantee coverage of only the U.S. components used in the assembly of U.S. Goods, provide the Value of the U.S. Components.
(5) Net Contract Value.
(6) Amount of the Initial Payment and evidence that the Initial Payment has been made by the Buyer to the Seller.
(7) Description and value of any discounts and allowances.
(8) Guaranteed Value.
(9) Guarantee fee.
(10) The Seller's statement, “All certifications set forth in § 1493.270 are hereby being made by the Seller in this application” which, when included in the application by the Seller, will constitute a certification that it is in compliance with all the requirements set forth in § 1493.270 with respect to both the initial and final applications.
(e) A final application for a Payment Guarantee may be approved as submitted, approved with modifications agreed to by the Seller, or rejected by CCC. CCC shall have the right to request the Seller to furnish any other information and documentation it deems pertinent to the evaluation of the Seller's application. In the event that the final application is approved, the Director will cause a Payment Guarantee
By providing the statement in § 1493.260(d)(10), the Seller is certifying that the information provided in the initial and final applications is true and correct and, further, that all requirements set forth in this section have been met. The Seller will be required to provide further explanation or documentation with regard to final applications that do not include this statement. If the Seller makes false certifications with respect to a Payment Guarantee, CCC will have the right, in addition to any other rights provided under this subpart or otherwise as a matter of law, to revoke guarantee coverage for any goods not yet exported and Services not yet performed and/or to commence legal action and/or administrative proceedings against the Seller. The Seller, in submitting an application for a Payment Guarantee and providing the statement set forth in § 1493.260(d)(10), certifies that:
(a) There have not been any corrupt payments or extra sales services or other items extraneous to the transaction provided, financed, or guaranteed in connection with the transaction, and the transaction complies with applicable United States law, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and other anti-bribery measures;
(b) At the time of submission of the final application for Payment Guarantee, the Buyer does not appear as an excluded party on the SAM list;
(c) The Seller is fully in compliance with the requirements of § 1493.320(b) for all existing Payment Guarantees issued to the Seller or has requested and been granted an extension per § 1493.320(b)(3); and
(d) The information provided pursuant to § 1493.220 has not changed and the Seller still meets all of the qualification requirements of § 1493.220.
(a)
(i) If the obligation to pay by the Foreign Financial Institution is conditioned on shipment documentation, the Letter of Credit must stipulate presentation of at least one original clean on board bill of lading as a required document, unless:
(A) The Seller, or a related company previously reported to CCC by the Seller pursuant to 1493.220(a)(5), is named as the shipper on the clean, on-board bill of lading. If the Seller or a related company is named the shipper on the bill of lading, the Letter of Credit may stipulate a copy or photocopy of an original, clean, on-board bill of lading; or
(B) The Letter of Credit stipulates presentation of electronic documents per paragraph (a)(ii) of this section.
(ii) If the Letter of Credit will allow for presentation of electronic documents, the Letter of Credit must so stipulate.
(iii) If the obligation to pay by the Foreign Financial Institution is conditioned on a Contractual Event requiring other than shipment documentation, the Contractual Event must be clearly stipulated in either the Letter of Credit or the Terms and Conditions Document.
(2) The use of a Terms and Conditions Document is optional. The Terms and Conditions Document, if any, must be specifically identified and referred to in the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit.
(3) The special requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be documented in one of the two following ways:
(i) The special requirements may be set forth in the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit as a special instruction from the Foreign Financial Institution; or
(ii) The special requirements may be set forth in a separate Terms and Conditions Document.
(b) Special requirements. The following provisions are required and must be documented in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) The terms of the Repayment Obligation, including a specific promise by the Foreign Financial Institution issuing the Letter of Credit to pay the Repayment Obligation;
(2) The following language: “In the event that the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”) is subrogated to the position of the obligee hereunder, this instrument shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, excluding its conflict of laws principles. In such case, any legal action or proceeding arising under this instrument will be brought exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as determined by CCC, and such parties hereby irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction and venue therein.”;
(3) A provision permitting the Holder of the Payment Guarantee to declare all or any part of the Repayment Obligation, including accrued interest, immediately due and payable, in the event a payment default occurs under the Letter of Credit or, if applicable, the Terms and Conditions Document; and
(4) Post Default Interest terms.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The value of Eligible Non-U.S. Goods; and
(2) The value of Eligible Imported Components.
(f)
(1) The Seller may request a Coverage Waiver for any of the following:
(i) To allow for guarantee coverage of non-U.S. Goods;
(ii) The U.S. Content Test, electing for guarantee coverage of only the U.S. components used in the assembly of U.S. Goods; and/or
(iii) The U.S. Content Test, allowing for guarantee coverage of non-U.S. Goods and imported components in U.S. Goods in excess of the value permitted under the U.S. Content Test.
(2) To request a Coverage Waiver on any of the bases specified in paragraph (1) of this sub-section, the Seller must submit with the initial application for a Payment Guarantee a justification of why the non-U.S. Goods and/or imported components in U.S. Goods are essential to the completion of the FGP project. This justification must be based on one of the following:
(i) The goods and/or components are no longer manufactured in or provided by the United States;
(ii) The use of U.S. Goods and/or components is not cost effective; or
(iii) U.S. Goods and/or components are not compatible with the existing infrastructure in the Destination Country.
(g)
(1) The sale includes corrupt payments or extra sales or services or other items extraneous to the transactions provided, financed, or guaranteed in connection with the transaction;
(2) The sale does not comply with applicable U.S. law, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and other anti-bribery measures;
(3) The Buyer is excluded or disqualified from participation in U.S. government programs;
(4) The goods, Services, and/or facility being financed will not primarily benefit U.S. Agricultural Commodity exports;
(5) The sale is not an Eligible Export Sale.
(h)
(1) Contractual Events with a Date of Performance prior to the date of receipt by CCC of the Seller's written application for a Payment Guarantee;
(2) Contractual Events with a Date of Performance later than the final Date of Performance shown on the Payment Guarantee or any amendments thereof;
(3) Contractual Events where the date of issuance of a Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit is later than the Date of Performance; or
(4) Contractual Events that have been guaranteed by CCC under another Payment Guarantee. If CCC determines that the Contractual Event has been guaranteed under multiple Payment Guarantees (or coverage has been requested under multiple Payment Guarantees), CCC will determine which Payment Guarantee (or application for Payment Guarantee), if any, corresponds to an Eligible Export Sale.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1) Made to one party acting for two or more parties; or
(2) Subject to further assignment.
(b)
(c)
(1) The U.S. Financial Institution must include the following certifications on the notice of assignment: “I certify, that:
(i) [Name of Assignee] has verified that the Foreign Financial Institution, at the time of submission of the notice of
(ii) To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided pursuant to § 1493.230 has not changed and [name of Assignee] still meets all of the qualification requirements of § 1493.230.”
(2) If the Assignee makes a false certification with respect to a Payment Guarantee, CCC may, in its sole discretion, in addition to any other action available as a matter of law, rescind and cancel the Payment Guarantee, reject the assignment of the Payment Guarantee, and/or commence legal action and/or administrative proceedings against the Assignee.
(d)
(e)
(1) At the time of assignment of a Payment Guarantee, is not in compliance with all requirements of § 1493.230(a); or
(2) Is the branch, agency, or subsidiary of the Foreign Financial Institution issuing the Letter of Credit; or
(3) Is owned or controlled by an entity that owns or controls the Foreign Financial Institution issuing the Letter of Credit; or
(4) Is the U.S. parent of the Foreign Financial Institution issuing the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit; or
(5) Is owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country and the Payment Guarantee has been issued in connection with sales of goods or Services to Buyers located in such foreign country.
(f)
(1) The Holder of the Payment Guarantee may enter into a Repurchase Agreement, to which the following requirements apply:
(i) Any repurchase under a Repurchase Agreement by the Holder of the Payment Guarantee must be for the entirety of outstanding balance under the associated Repayment Obligation;
(ii) In the event of default with respect to the Repayment Obligation subject to a Repurchase Agreement, the Holder of the Payment Guarantee must immediately effect such repurchase; and
(iii) The Holder of the Payment Guarantee must file all documentation required by §§ 1493.350 and 1493.360 in case of a default by the Foreign Financial Institution under the Payment Guarantee.
(2) The Holder of the Payment Guarantee shall, within five Business Days of execution of a transaction under the Repurchase Agreement, notify CCC of the transaction in writing in the manner specified on the USDA Web site. Such notification must include the following information:
(i) Name and address of the other party to the Repurchase Agreement;
(ii) A statement indicating whether the transaction executed under the Repurchase Agreement is for a fixed term or if it is terminable upon demand by either party. If fixed, provide the purchase date and the agreed upon date for repurchase. If terminable on demand, provide the purchase date only; and
(iii) The following written certification: “[Name of Holder of the Payment Guarantee] has entered into a Repurchase Agreement that meets the provisions of 7 CFR § 1493.310(f)(1) and, prior to entering into this agreement, verified that [name of other party to the Repurchase Agreement] does not appear as an excluded party on the SAM list.”
(3) Failure of the Holder of the Payment Guarantee to comply with any of the provisions of § 1493.310(f) may result in CCC annulling coverage on the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit and Terms and Condition Document, if applicable, covered by the Payment Guarantee.
(a)
(1) Payment Guarantee number;
(2) Evidence of performance report number (
(3) Date of Performance;
(4) Seller's Firm Sales Contract number;
(5) Detailed description of the Contractual Event. For goods, include the applicable 10-digit Harmonized System classification code and the quantity;
(6) Value of the Contractual Event covered by the Payment Guarantee;
(7) Description and value of Discounts and Allowances, if any;
(8) The Seller's statement, “All certifications set forth in § 1493.330 are hereby made by the Seller in this evidence of performance” which, when included in the evidence of performance by the Seller, will constitute a certification that it is in compliance with all the requirements set forth in § 1493.330; and
(9) In addition to all of the above information, the final evidence of performance report for the Payment Guarantee must include the following:
(i) The statement “All Contractual Events under the Payment Guarantee have been completed.”
(ii) A statement summarizing the total value of all Contractual Events covered under the Payment Guarantee (
(b)
(1) The Seller must provide a written report to CCC in the manner specified on the USDA Web site within 30 calendar days from the Date of Performance.
(2) If at any time the Seller determines that no Contractual Events are to occur under a Payment Guarantee, the Seller is required to notify CCC in writing no later than the final Date of Performance specified on the Payment Guarantee by furnishing the Payment Guarantee number and stating “No Contractual Events will occur under the Payment Guarantee.”
(3) Requests for an extension of the time limit for submitting an evidence of performance report must be submitted in writing by the Seller to the Director and must include an explanation of why the extension is needed. An extension of the time limit may be granted if such extension is requested prior to the expiration of the time limit for filing and is determined by the Director to be in the best interests of CCC.
(c)
By providing the statement contained in § 1493.320(a)(8), the Seller is certifying that the information provided in the evidence of performance report is
(a) The specifications and/or quantity of the Contractual Event conform with the information contained in the Seller's application for Payment Guarantee and Firm Sales Contract, or if different, CCC has approved such changes;
(b) A Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit has been opened in favor of the Seller by the Foreign Financial Institution shown on the Payment Guarantee to cover the dollar amount of the Contractual Event covered by the Payment Guarantee, less the Initial Payment and less Discounts and Allowances;
(c) There have not been any corrupt payments or extra sales services or other items extraneous to the transaction provided, financed, or guaranteed in connection with the transaction, and that the transaction complies with applicable United States law, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and other anti-bribery measures;
(d) If the Seller has not assigned the Payment Guarantee to a U.S. Financial Institution, the Seller has verified that the Foreign Financial Institution, at the time of submission of the evidence of performance report, does not appear as an excluded party on the SAM list; and
(e) The information provided pursuant to §§ 1493.220 and 1493.260 has not changed (except as agreed to and amended by CCC) and the Seller still meets all of the qualification requirements of § 1493.220.
(a)
(b)
(1) Sellers must obtain and maintain records of an official or customary commercial nature that demonstrate the arrival of the goods sold in connection with the FGP in the Destination Country. At the Director's request, the Seller must submit to CCC records demonstrating proof of entry. Records demonstrating proof of entry must be in English or be accompanied by a certified or other translation acceptable to CCC. Records acceptable to meet this requirement include an original certification of entry signed by a duly authorized customs or port official of the Destination Country, by an agent or representative of the vessel or shipline that delivered the goods to the Destination Country, or by a private surveyor in the Destination Country, or other documentation deemed acceptable by the Director showing:
(i) That the good(s) entered the Destination Country;
(ii) The identification of the export carrier;
(iii) The quantity of the good(s);
(iv) A description of the good(s); and
(v) The date(s) and place(s) of unloading of the good(s) in the Destination Country.
(2) Where shipping documents (
(a)
(1) Payment Guarantee number;
(2) Name of the country or region as shown on the Payment Guarantee;
(3) Name of the defaulting Foreign Financial Institution;
(4) Payment due date;
(5) Total amount of the defaulted payment due, indicating separately the amounts for principal and Ordinary Interest, and including a copy of the repayment schedule with due dates, principal amounts and Ordinary Interest rates for each installment;
(6) Date of Foreign Financial Institution's refusal to pay, if applicable;
(7) Reason for Foreign Financial Institution's refusal to pay, if known, and copies of any correspondence with the Foreign Financial Institution regarding the default.
(b)
(c)
(1) In the event that a Foreign Financial Institution defaults under a Repayment Obligation under this subpart or under 7 CFR 1493, subpart B, CCC may declare that such Foreign Financial Institution is no longer eligible to provide additional Letters of Credit under the FGP. If CCC determines that such defaulting Foreign Financial Institution is no longer eligible for the FGP, CCC shall provide written notice of such ineligibility to all Sellers and Assignees, if any, having Payment Guarantees covering transactions with respect to which the defaulting Foreign Financial Institution is expected to issue a Letter of Credit. Receipt of written notice from CCC that a defaulting Foreign Financial Institution is no longer eligible to provide additional Letters of Credit under the FGP shall constitute withdrawal of coverage of that Foreign Financial Institution under all Payment Guarantees with respect to any Letter of Credit issued on or after the date of receipt of such written notice. CCC will not withdraw coverage of the defaulting Foreign Financial Institution under any Payment Guarantee with respect to any Letter of Credit issued before the date of receipt of such written notice.
(2) If CCC withdraws coverage of the defaulting Foreign Financial Institution, CCC will permit the Seller (with concurrence of the Assignee, if any) to utilize another approved Foreign Financial Institution, and will consider other requested amendments to the Payment Guarantee, for the balance of the transaction covered by the Payment Guarantee. If no alternate Foreign Financial Institution is identified to issue the Letter of Credit within 30 calendar days, CCC will cancel the Payment Guarantee and refund the Seller's guarantee fees corresponding to any unutilized portion of the Payment Guarantee.
(a)
(1) An original cover letter signed by the Holder of the Payment Guarantee and containing the following information:
(i) Payment Guarantee number;
(ii) A description of:
(A) Any payments from or on behalf of the defaulting party or otherwise related to the defaulted payment that were received by the Seller or the Assignee prior to submission of the claim; and
(B) Any security, insurance, or collateral arrangements, whether or not any payment has been realized from such security, insurance, or collateral arrangement as of the time of claim, from or on behalf of the defaulting party or otherwise related to the defaulted payment.
(iii) The following certifications:
(A) A certification that the defaulted payment has not been received (or, alternatively, specifying the portion of the scheduled payment that has not been received), listing separately scheduled principal and Ordinary Interest;
(B) A certification of the amount of the defaulted payment, indicating separately the amounts for defaulted principal and Ordinary Interest;
(C) A certification that all documents submitted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section are true and correct copies; and
(D) A certification that all documents conforming with the requirements for payment under the Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit have been submitted to the negotiating bank or directly to the Foreign Financial Institution under such Letter of Credit.
(2) An original instrument, in form and substance satisfactory to CCC, subrogating to CCC the respective rights of the Holder of the Payment Guarantee to the amount of payment in default under the applicable sale. The instrument must reference the applicable Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit and, if applicable, the Terms and Conditions Document; and
(3) A copy of each of the following documents:
(i) The repayment schedule with due dates, principal amounts and Ordinary Interest rates for each installment (if the Ordinary Interest rates for future payments are unknown at the time of the claim for default is submitted, provide estimates of such rates);
(ii) (A) The Foreign Financial Institution Letter of Credit securing the sale; and
(B) If applicable, the Terms and Conditions Document;
(iii) For goods, depending upon the method of shipment, the ocean carrier or intermodal bill(s) of lading signed by the shipping company with the onboard ocean carrier date for each shipment, the airway bill, or, if shipped by rail or truck, the bill of lading and the entry certificate or similar document signed by an official of the Destination Country. If the transaction utilizes electronic bill(s) of lading (e-BL), a print-out of the e-BL from electronic system with an electronic signature is acceptable;
(iv) The Seller's invoice. For shipment of goods, the invoice must show the applicable Incoterms;
(v) The evidence of performance report(s) previously submitted by the Seller to CCC in conformity with the requirements of § 1493.320(a); and
(vi) If the defaulted payment was part of a transaction executed under a Repurchase Agreement, written evidence that the repurchase occurred as required under § 1493.310(f)(1)(ii).
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) The Guaranteed Value as stated in the Payment Guarantee, plus Eligible Interest, less any payments received or funds realized from insurance, security or collateral arrangements prior to claim by the Seller or the Assignee from or on behalf of the defaulting party or otherwise related to the obligation in default (other than payments between CCC, the Seller or the Assignee); or
(2) The guaranteed percentage (as indicated in the Payment Guarantee) of the value of the Contractual Event indicated in the evidence of performance, plus Eligible Interest, less any payments received or funds realized from insurance, security or collateral arrangements prior to claim by the Seller or the Assignee from or on behalf of the defaulting party or otherwise related to the obligation in default (other than payments between CCC, the Seller or the Assignee).
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) In the event that monies related to the obligation in default are recovered by the Seller or the Assignee from or on behalf of the defaulting party, the Buyer, or any source whatsoever (excluding payments between CCC, the Seller and the Assignee), such monies shall be immediately paid to CCC. Any monies derived from insurance or through the liquidation of any security or collateral after the claim is filed with CCC shall be deemed recoveries that must be paid by the Seller and/or Assignee to CCC. If such monies are not received by CCC within 15 Business Days from the date of recovery by the Seller or the Assignee, such party will also owe to CCC interest from the date of recovery of such funds to the date of CCC's receipt of such funds. This interest will be calculated at a rate equal to the latest average investment rate of the most recent Treasury 91-day bill auction, as announced by the Department of Treasury, in effect on the date of recovery and will accrue from such date to the date of payment by the Seller or the Assignee to CCC. Such interest will be charged only on CCC's share of the recovery. If there has been no 91-day auction within 90 calendar days of the date interest begins to accrue, CCC will apply an alternative rate in a manner to be described on the USDA Web site.
(2) If CCC recovers monies that should be applied to a Payment Guarantee for which a claim has been paid by CCC, CCC will pay the Holder of the Payment Guarantee its pro rata share if any, provided that the required information necessary for determining pro rata distribution has been furnished. If a required payment is not made by CCC within 15 Business Days from the date of recovery or 15 Business Days from receiving the required information for determining pro rata distribution, whichever is later, CCC will pay interest calculated at a rate equal to the latest average investment rate of the most recent Treasury 91-day bill auction, as announced by the Department of Treasury, in effect on the date of recovery, and interest will accrue from such date to the date of payment by CCC. The interest will apply only to the portion of the recovery payable to the Holder of the Payment Guarantee.
(c)
(d)
(1) The Seller will be liable to CCC when and if it is determined by CCC that the Seller has engaged in fraud, or has been or is in material breach of any contractual obligation, certification or warranty made by the Seller for the purpose of obtaining the Payment Guarantee or for fulfilling obligations under the FGP; and
(2) The Assignee will be liable to CCC when and if it is determined by CCC that the Assignee has engaged in fraud or otherwise violated program requirements.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(2) The Seller or the Assignee may seek reconsideration of a determination made by the Director by submitting a letter requesting reconsideration to the Director within 30 calendar days of the date of the determination. For the purposes of this section, the date of a determination will be the date of the letter or other means of notification to the Seller or the Assignee of the determination. The Seller or the Assignee may include with the letter requesting reconsideration any additional information that it wishes the Director to consider in reviewing its request. The Director will respond to the request for reconsideration within 30 calendar days of the date on which the request or the final documentary evidence submitted by the Seller or the Assignee is received by the Director, whichever is later, unless the Director extends the time permitted for response. If the Seller or the Assignee fails to request reconsideration of a determination by the Director within 30 calendar days of the date of the determination, then the determination of the Director will be deemed final.
(3) If the Seller or the Assignee requests reconsideration of a determination by the Director pursuant to subparagraph (a)(2) of this section, and the Director upholds the original determination, then the Seller or the Assignee may appeal the Director's final determination to the GSM in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. If the Seller or the Assignee fails to appeal the Director's final determination within 30 calendar days, as provided in section § 1493.390(b)(1), then the Director's decision becomes the final determination of CCC.
(b)
(2) If the Seller or the Assignee does not request an administrative hearing, the Seller or the Assignee must indicate in its appeal letter whether or not it will submit any additional written information or documentation for the GSM to consider in acting upon its appeal. This information or documentation must be submitted to the GSM within 30 calendar days of the date of the appeal letter to the GSM. The GSM will make a decision regarding the appeal based upon the information contained in the administrative record. The GSM will issue his or her written decision within 60 calendar days of the latter of the date on which the GSM receives the appeal or the date that final documentary evidence is submitted by the Seller or the Assignee to the GSM.
(3) If the Seller or the Assignee has requested an administrative hearing, the GSM will set a date and time for the hearing that is mutually convenient for the GSM and the Seller or the Assignee. This date will ordinarily be within 60 calendar days of the date on which the GSM receives the request for a hearing. The hearing will be an informal procedure. The Seller or the Assignee and/or its counsel may present any relevant testimony or documentary evidence to the GSM. A transcript of the hearing will not ordinarily be prepared unless the Seller or the Assignee bears the costs involved in preparing the transcript, although the GSM may decide to have a transcript prepared at the expense of the Government. The GSM will make a decision regarding the appeal based upon the information contained in the administrative record. The GSM will issue his or her written decision within 60 calendar days of the latter of the date of the hearing or the date of receipt of the transcript, if one is to be prepared.
(4) The decision of the GSM will be the final determination of CCC. The Seller or the Assignee will be entitled to no further administrative appellate rights.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Request for information.
The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is seeking comments from the public regarding regulations issued under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (P&S Act). GIPSA regulations address circumstances under which a market agency is allowed to sell livestock on a commission basis to its owners, officers, and employees. There may be some need to update this regulation to address current marketing practices. GIPSA would like to determine whether additional information is needed in clarifying the circumstances under which key employees of the market agency, those designated as an auctioneer, weighmaster, or salesman, may purchase livestock.
We will consider comments we receive by August 14, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this request for information. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
S. Brett Offutt, Director, Policy and Litigation Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–3646, (202) 720–7363,
GIPSA enforces the P&S Act. Under the authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) and delegated to GIPSA, the Packers & Stockyards Program (P&SP) is authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act. Section 312 (7 U.S.C. 213) of the P&S Act makes it unlawful for markets to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in connection with the marketing, buying, or selling of livestock on a commission basis. Section 307 (7 U.S.C. 208) of the P&S Act makes it the duty of every stockyard owner and market agency to establish, observe, and enforce just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory regulations and practices with respect to the furnishing of stockyard services and makes every unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory regulation or practice prohibited and unlawful. Section 201.56 (9 CFR 201.56) of the regulations issued under the P&S Act explains when and under what circumstances market agencies, individuals, or firms affiliated with a market agency, may purchase consigned livestock from sales conducted by the market agency.
Section 201.56 was amended in October 1993 [58 FR 52886]. Since then only a minor technical amendment has been made to Section 201.56. This amendment revised the Office of Management and Budget control number [68 FR 75388, December 31, 2003]. GIPSA is considering whether to update paragraph (c).
Section 201.56(c) of the regulations recognizes “auctioneers,” “weighmasters,” and “salesmen” as key employees of market agencies. Key employees are those market agency employees whose duties involve performing key functions (
Individuals performing key functions for a market agency are restricted to a greater degree as to the purchases they may make from consignments to the market. Section 201.56(c) of the regulations currently states that key employees may not purchase livestock out of consignment for their own account (personal or business) for any purpose. Key employees may still purchase livestock in the name of the market agency; for example, key employees can bid in the name of the market agency to make market support purchases. Market support purchases are purchases made in the name of the market agency when the market agency believes that the highest bid does not reflect the true market value of the livestock being offered for sale. Key employees may also purchase livestock in the market agency's name for the market agency's livestock dealer account. Market agencies and their owners, officers, agents, non-key employees, and firms in which these individuals have an ownership or financial interest may purchase livestock out of consignments for any purpose. Only those employees designated as key employees may not purchase livestock for their own accounts.
In forty different locations within the regulations promulgated under the P&S Act, GIPSA refers to the livestock scale operator as the “weigher.” The regulations refer to the scale operator as the “weighmaster,” only twice. Section 201.56(c) is one of the two exceptions. To our knowledge there is no difference meant or intended between the two terms. For the sake of consistency, GIPSA is considering changing “weighmaster” to “weigher” in the list of key employees.
GIPSA is also considering the need to retain “salesmen” on the list of key employees. Historically, salesmen have been owners or employees of market agencies engaged in selling livestock on a commission basis in privately negotiated sales. Presently we know of
GIPSA is requesting comments from livestock industry representatives that address the following:
(1) Which of the following should be included as a key employee, and why:
(2) If weighers are otherwise considered key employees, should a weigher be allowed to bid on livestock when:
(3) If livestock scale operators remain on the list of key employees would you object to GIPSA referring to the livestock scale operator as the “weigher” rather than the “weighmaster” in 201.56(c)?
GIPSA is also interested to hear comments on whether key employees may purchase livestock during a sale under specific circumstances, or for specific purposes, such as:
(4) If a key employee would step down from the auctioneer's booth or scale during a sale:
(a) Could the key employee then bid on livestock for their own account from the bleachers with the other buyers as long as the employee provided no key services while doing so:
(i) Should this be limited to a specific species;
(ii) Should their time spent bidding or serving in a key capacity be documented, and if so, how;
(iii) Should a key employee be allowed to return to the auctioneer's booth or scale, to perform key employee duties, after bidding on livestock from the bleachers?
(5) Should GIPSA allow a key employee to buy livestock for market support or to fill orders held by their employer, the market agency?
(6) What is perceived to be the greatest impediment or barrier to effective competition at a market agency selling livestock on a commission basis?
GIPSA welcomes any comments addressing these issues and any other aspects of the general subject of permitting key employees to purchase livestock from consignments to a market agency.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, and A340–300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that the inner bore of some main landing gear (MLG) unit bogie beams were insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection or maintenance actions were accomplished. This proposed AD would require, for certain MLG units, determining which revision of the component maintenance manual (CMM) was used to accomplish the most recent MLG unit overhaul; a detailed inspection for missing or damaged paint, and if necessary, a detailed inspection of the cadmium plating for discrepancies, measurement of the depth of the cadmium plating, a general visual inspection of the base metal for corrosion or damage, a detailed inspection of repaired areas for cracking or corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the bore of each MLG unit bogie beam, which could result in collapse of a MLG unit, and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1138; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0222, dated October 6, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter, A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, and A340–300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
From in-service experience, it was found that the inner bore of some bogie beams had been insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection and/or possible maintenance actions accomplished in this area (absence of corrosion inhibitor and damage to paint have been found in some specific areas).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to corrosion on the bore of the bogie beam, potentially resulting in Main Landing Gear (MLG) collapse, ultimately resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L004–14, providing inspection instructions for some aeroplane configurations.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the MLG units that are possibly affected, [a detailed] inspection [for missing or damaged paint] of the MLG Bogie Beam bore and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions.
This [EASA] AD also prohibits the installation of MLG units that have been overhauled by using instructions from an earlier Components Maintenance Manual (CMM) revision.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A32L004–14, dated July 28, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are not dated. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the bogie beam bore of the MLG.
Messier-Dowty has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for inspections of the internal diameter of the bogie beam for corrosion.
• Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007.
• Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $90,780, or $1,020 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any necessary follow-on actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 30, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A330–201, A330–202, A330–203, A330–223, A330–223F, A330–243, A330–243F, A330–301, A330–302, A330–303, A330–321, A330–322, A330–323, A330–341, A330–342, and A330–343 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 58896 has been embodied in production or embodied through Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32–3237.
(2) Model A340–211, A340–212, A340–213, A340–311, A340–312, and A340–313 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 58896 has been embodied in production or embodied through Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32–4279.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports that the inner bore of some main landing gear (MLG) unit bogie beams were insufficiently re-protected against corrosion after inspection or maintenance actions were accomplished. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the bore of each MLG unit bogie beam, which could result in collapse of a MLG unit, and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: For MLG units having a 201252 series or 201490 series part number, determine the revision of the Airbus component maintenance manual (CMM) used to do the most recent MLG unit overhaul. If it is determined that the Airbus CMM revision specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD was used to accomplish the most recent MLG unit overhaul: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, clean the area between the bogie pivot pin and the bogie beam bore of each MLG unit and do a detailed inspection for missing or damaged paint, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004–14 dated July 28, 2014.
(1) For MLG units having a part number in the 201252 series: Airbus CMM 32–11–74, Revision 25 or earlier.
(2) For MLG units having a part number in the 201490 series: Airbus CMM 32–12–05, Revision 20 or earlier.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any missing or damaged paint is found: Before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the cadmium plating for discrepancies, measure the depth of the plating as applicable, and do a general visual inspection of the base metal for corrosion or damage. If any discrepancy, damage, or corrosion is found, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, and do a detailed inspection of repaired areas for cracking or corrosion, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004–14, dated July 28, 2014, except where Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L004–14, dated July 28, 2014, specifies to contact Messier-Dowty if cracking or corrosion is found in a repaired area, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, report the findings of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Services Engineering—SEEL1, Attn: Philippe Kerangueven, Product Leader A330/A340, ATA–32, Landing Gear Systems, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone +33 (0) 5 67 19 18 42; fax +33 0 5 67 19 12–05; email
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days after that inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishment of the boroscope inspection of the internal diameter of the bogie beam for corrosion or damage to the protective treatments, measurement of the depth of the protective treatments as applicable, and accomplishment of all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, dated November 16, 2007; or Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; are acceptable for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that MLG unit, provided the actions in the Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD have not been accomplished on that MLG unit. Where Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–272, dated November 16, 2007; or Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; specify to contact Messier-Dowty for repair information, the repair must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(1) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, dated July 9, 2010.
(2) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, Revision 1, dated October 4, 2011.
(3) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, Revision 2, dated October 4, 2012.
(4) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, Revision 3, dated September 11, 2013.
(5) Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, Revision 4, dated January 23, 2014.
Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD: Inspections done using the instructions in Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34–32–285, Revision 5, dated August 14, 2014, do not affect the optional method of compliance provided by this paragraph.
As of the effective date of this AD, any overhauled MLG unit having a 201252 series or 201490 series part number may be installed on an airplane, provided the most recent MLG overhaul was done using an Airbus CMM that is not specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, or, prior to installation, the MLG unit passes the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0222, dated October 6, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319–113, A319–114, A320–211, and A320–212 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the aft mount pylon bolts of the CFM56–5 engines may have been installed using the wrong torque values. This proposed AD would require identification of engines that were installed using the wrong torque values and re-torque of the four aft mount pylon bolts of those engines. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct improper torque of the aft mount pylon bolts, which, if combined with any maintenance damage, could lead to aft engine mount failure, possibly resulting in engine detachment and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: 425–227–1405; fax: 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness
In the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) revision dated May 2013, a wrong torque value was added in AMM task 71–00–00–400–040–A01 “Installation of the power plant with Engine Positioner TWW75E”. Temporary Revisions (TR) dated March 2014 were published by Airbus to correct the information and with AMM revision dated May 2014, Task 71–00–00–400–040–A01 was corrected to include the correct values. Notwithstanding those actions, static and fatigue analyses have concluded that this under-torque scenario negatively impacts the assembly performance, reducing the aft mount capability.
This condition, if not corrected and if combined with any maintenance damage, could lead to aft engine mount failure, possibly resulting in engine detachment and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of CFM56–5 engines (those listed in TCDS EASA.E.067 [
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–71–1063, including Appendix 01, dated August 13, 2014. The service information describes procedures to detect and correct improper torque of the aft mount pylon bolts. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 126 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,420, or $170 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 30, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A319–113 and –114 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A320–211 and –212 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by a report that the aft mount pylon bolts of the CFM56–5 engines may have been installed using the wrong torque values. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improper torque of the aft mount pylon bolts, which, if combined with any maintenance damage, could lead to aft engine mount failure, possibly resulting in engine detachment and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months or 1,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, determine the method used to install the engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1063, including Appendix 01, dated August 13, 2014. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the method used to install the engines can be
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Additional guidance for the re-torque can be found in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Temporary Revision 71–030, dated March 14, 2014, or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Task 71–00–00–400–040–A01, “Installation of the Power Plant with Engine Positioner TWW 75E,” dated May 2014.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a CFM56–5 engine, on any airplane, unless the engine is installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–71–1063, including Appendix 01, dated August 13, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0258, dated November 28, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of a certain chord of the pivot bulkhead. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the left side and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD provides a modification of the pivot bulkhead, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the pivot bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6513; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of fatigue cracking of the forward outer chord of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead. Cracks in the forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead that are not found and repaired can become large and result in a severed forward outer chord. The cracks were caused by a stress concentration, which is generated at the transition radius of the forward outer flange of the chord prior to the chord splice at the upper longeron. Since the horizontal stabilizer is attached to the STA 2370 bulkhead at two pivot locations, fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, if not corrected, could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.
We reviewed the following Boeing service information.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, describes procedures for repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, repetitive post-repair inspections for certain airplanes, and related investigative and corrective actions.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 777–53–0076, dated January 14, 2015, describes procedures for a modification of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead by replacing the left and right side forward outer chords and upper splice angles, and related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and modifications that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 30, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the forward outer chord of the station (STA) 2370 pivot bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the outer flanges of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, which could result in a severed forward outer chord and consequent loss of horizontal stabilizer control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, except as provided in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the left and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, until the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done.
For airplanes on which a repair specified in Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075 has been done: At the times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, do a surface HFEC inspection, an open-hole HFEC inspection, and a detailed inspection for cracking of the left side and right side forward outer chords of the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, until the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done.
Modifying the STA 2370 pivot bulkhead by replacing the left and right side forward outer chords and upper splice angles, and doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for the modified location only. The modification must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–53–0076, dated January 14, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777–530076, dated January 14, 2015; specify to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–53A0075, dated January 14, 2015, specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6513; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review, which revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations outside the fuel tank. This proposed AD would require installing additional and improved fuel system bonding provisions, and revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0109, dated May 8, 2014 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.
The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker F28 design, in response to these regulations, revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations outside the fuel tank.
This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a set of fuel tank bonding modifications.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the installation of additional and improved bonding provisions. These modifications do not require opening of the fuel tank access panels.
More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF28.038#02.
Required actions include revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21–78, and subsequent Amendments 21–82 and 21–83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker F28 Appendix SB SBF28–28–059/APP01, dated July 15, 2014, of Fokker F28 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28–28–059, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for the installation of additional bonding provisions outside the fuel tank. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
Although EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0109, dated May 8, 2014, specifies both revising the maintenance program to include limitations, and doing certain repetitive actions (
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $140 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,375, or $1,075 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 30, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a design review, which revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations outside the fuel tank. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install additional and improved fuel system bonding provisions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker F28 Appendix SB SBF28–28–059/APP01, dated July 15, 2014, of Fokker F28 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28–28–059, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2014.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in paragraph 1.L.(1)(b) of Fokker F28 Appendix SB SBF28–28–059/APP01, dated July 15, 2014, of Fokker F28 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF28–28–059, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2014.
(1) Before further flight, after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
After incorporating the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0109, dated May 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.
This action withdraws the NPRM published in the
The proposed rule published May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25756) is withdrawn as of June 15, 2015.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–222–4075.
An NPRM was published in the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA–2014–0197, Airspace Docket No. 14–AGL–5, as published in the
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.
This action withdraws the NPRM published in the
The proposed rule published May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25755) is withdrawn as of June 15, 2015.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–222–4075.
An NPRM was published in the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA–2014–0198, Airspace Docket No. 14–AGL–8, as published in the
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.
This action withdraws the NPRM published in the
The proposed rule published May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25757) is withdrawn as of June 15, 2015.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–222–4075.
An NPRM was published in the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA–2014–0199, Airspace Docket No. 14–AGL–9, as published in the
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g) 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; Reopening of comment period.
This action reopens the comment period for the regulatory evaluation associated with the FAA's January 13, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
The comment period for the NPRM published on January 13, 2015 (80 FR 1590), closed March 16, 2015, and is reopened until July 15, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–1012 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ralen Gao, ARM–209, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267–3168; email
See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.
On January 13, 2015, the FAA issued Notice No. 14–10, entitled “
After the close of the comment period, the FAA discovered that the regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the docket. Therefore, to ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide comments specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in the docket (FAA–2014–1012), the FAA is re-opening the comment period for 30 days to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only. The FAA will not accept or address comments on the NPRM because the comment period for the NPRM closed on March 16, 2015.
Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 14–10 is reopened until July 15, 2015.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the regulatory evaluation, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of a notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations that provide the method to be used to adjust the applicable Federal rates (AFRs) under section 1288 of the Internal Revenue Code (adjusted AFRs) for tax-exempt obligations and the method to be used to determine the long-term tax-exempt and the adjusted Federal long-term rate under section 382.
The public hearing originally scheduled for June 24, 2015 at 10 a.m. is cancelled.
Oluwafunmilayo Taylor of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 317–6901 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The public comment period for these regulations expired on June 1, 2015. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of June 8, 2015, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for June 24, 2015 at 10 a.m. is cancelled.
United States Parole Commission, Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Parole Commission proposes to revise its rules for determining whether a prisoner who was sentenced under the D.C. Code and committed their offense before March 3, 1985 is suitable for release on parole. For these cases, the Commission will apply the regulations of the former District of Columbia Board of Parole that were effective before March 1985. Prisoners who are serving D.C. Code sentences and who committed their offense before March 3, 1985 would be considered under the proposed regulation at their next regularly scheduled hearing or, if they have not yet received a parole hearing, at their initial parole hearing.
Submit comments on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number USPC–2015–01 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346–7030. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.
The U.S. Parole Commission is responsible for making parole release decisions for District of Columbia felony offenders who are eligible for parole. D.C. Code section 24–131(a). The Commission took over this responsibility on August 5, 1998 as a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33). The Commission immediately promulgated regulations to implement its new duties, including paroling policy guidelines at 28 CFR 2.80. 63 FR 39172–39183 (July 21, 1998). In promulgating the decision-making guidelines, the Commission used the basic approach and format of the 1987 guidelines of the District of Columbia Board of Parole, but made modifications to the Board's guidelines in an effort to incorporate factors that led to departures from the guidelines. 63 FR 39172–39174. In 2000, the Commission modified the guidelines for D.C. prisoners, creating suggested ranges of months to be served based on the pre- and post-incarceration factors evaluated under the guidelines, which in turn allowed the Commission to extend presumptive parole dates to prisoners
Also in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of
Since the
If a prisoner has been previously granted a presumptive parole date under the Commission's guidelines at § 2.80(b) through (m), the presumptive date will not be rescinded unless the Commission would rescind the date for one of the accepted bases for such action,
These proposed regulations will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, these proposed rules do not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.
These proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
These proposed rules will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.
These proposed rules are not “major rules” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed rules will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, these are rules of agency practice or procedure that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and do not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and Parole.
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission proposes to adopt the following amendment to 28 CFR part 2:
18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).
(a) * * *
(5) A prisoner who committed the offense of conviction before March 3, 1985 who is not incarcerated as a parole violator and has not been granted a parole effective date may receive a parole determination using the 1972 regulations of the former District of Columbia Board of Parole (9 DCMR 105.1):
(i)
(A) The offense, noting the nature of the violation, mitigating or aggravating circumstances and the activities and adjustment of the offender following arrest if on bond or in the community under any pre-sentence type arrangement.
(B) Prior history of criminality noting the nature and pattern of any prior offenses as they may relate to the current circumstances.
(C) Personal and social history of the offender, including such factors as his family situation, educational development, socialization, marital history, employment history, use of leisure time and prior military experience, if any.
(D) Physical and emotional health and/or problems which may have played a role in the individual's socialization process, and efforts made to overcome any such problems.
(E) Institutional experience, including information as to the offender's overall general adjustment, his ability to handle interpersonal relationships, his behavior responses, his planning for himself, setting meaningful goals in areas of academic schooling, vocational education or training, involvements in
(F) Community resources available to assist the offender with regard to his needs and problems, which will supplement treatment and training programs begun in the institution, and be available to assist the offender to further serve in his efforts to reintegrate himself back into the community and within his family unit as a productive useful individual.
(ii) If a prisoner has been previously granted a presumptive parole date under the Commission's guidelines at § 2.80(b) through (m), the presumptive date will not be rescinded unless the Commission would rescind the date for one of the accepted bases for such action,
(iii) Prisoners who have previously been considered for parole under the 1987 guidelines of the former D.C. Board of Parole will continue to receive consideration under those guidelines.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), Interior.
Proposed rule.
BSEE proposes to incorporate by reference the Seventh Edition of the American Petroleum Institute (API) Specification 2C (Spec. 2C), “Offshore Pedestal-mounted Cranes” (2012), into its regulations. The Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C revised many aspects of the standard for design and construction of cranes manufactured since the Seventh Edition took effect in October 2012. The intent of proposing to incorporate this revised standard into BSEE regulations is to improve the safety of cranes mounted on fixed platforms that are installed on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This proposed rule would require that all cranes that lessees or operators mount on any fixed platforms after the effective date of the final rule comply with the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C.
Submit comments by July 15, 2015. BSEE may not fully consider comments received after this date.
You may submit comments on the proposed rulemaking by any of the following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1014–AA13 as an identifier in your comments. BSEE may post all submitted comments, in their entirety, at:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
2. Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior (DOI); Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; ATTN: Regulations and Standards Branch; 45600 Woodland Road, Mail Code VAE–ORP; Sterling, Virginia 20166. Please reference “Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Update of Cranes Standard, 1014–AA13,” in your comments and include your name and return address.
Kelly Odom, BSEE, Regulations and Standards Branch, 703–787–1775, email address:
As required by law, BSEE regulates oil and gas exploration, development and production operations on the OCS. Among other purposes, BSEE's regulations seek to prevent injury, loss of life, as well as damage to property, natural resources, and the environment. BSEE incorporates by reference in its regulations many oil and gas industry standards in order to require compliance with those standards in offshore operations.
Currently, BSEE's regulations require that all cranes on any fixed platform that was installed on the OCS after March 17, 2003, as well as all cranes manufactured after March 17, 2003 and installed (
BSEE has determined that incorporation of the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C would improve safety and help prevent injury as well as damage to property. Thus, BSEE proposes to amend its existing regulations by incorporating the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C and, thus, to require that any cranes that lessees or operators mount—after the effective date of the final rule—on any fixed platforms meet the requirements of that standard. BSEE also proposes to add a definition of “Fixed Platform” to the regulations, consistent with the Sixth and Seventh Editions of API Spec. 2C as well as with related API standards and BSEE regulations.
BSEE promotes safety, protects the environment, and conserves offshore oil and gas resources through vigorous regulatory oversight and enforcement. BSEE derives its authority primarily from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356a. Congress enacted OCSLA in 1953, establishing Federal control over the OCS and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to regulate oil and natural gas exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS. The Secretary has authorized BSEE to perform these functions (
To carry out its responsibilities, BSEE regulates exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas on the OCS to enhance safety and environmental protection in a way that reflects advancements in technology and new information. In addition to developing and implementing such regulatory requirements, BSEE collaborates with standards development organizations and the international community to develop and revise safety and environmental standards, which BSEE may incorporate into its regulatory program. BSEE also conducts onsite inspections to ensure
BSEE encourages you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments, as discussed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment on this proposed rule, however, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
BSEE frequently uses standards (
Federal regulations at 1 CFR part 51 govern how BSEE and other Federal agencies incorporate various documents by reference. Agencies may only incorporate a document by reference by publishing the document title, edition, date, author, publisher, identification number, and other specified information in the
When a copyrighted industry standard is incorporated by reference into our regulations, BSEE is obligated to observe and protect that copyright. We provide members of the public with Web site addresses where these standards may be accessed for viewing—sometimes for free and sometimes for a fee. The decision to charge a fee is made by each standards development organization. API provides free online public access to at least 160 technical and other key industry standards. Those standards represent almost one-third of all API standards and include all that are safety-related or are incorporated into Federal regulations. These standards are available for review online, while hard copies and printable versions will continue to be available for purchase through API. To review such standards online, go to the API publications Web site at:
For the convenience of the viewing public who may not wish to purchase or view the incorporated documents online, they may be inspected at BSEE's office at 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166 (phone: 703–787–1587).
Documents incorporated in the final rule will be made available to the public for viewing when requested. Additional information on where these documents can be inspected or purchased can be found at 30 CFR 250.198,
As authorized by OCSLA, BSEE has promulgated regulations governing oil, gas and sulphur exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS (30 CFR part 250). On February 14, 2003, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the predecessor to BSEE, incorporated the Fifth Edition of API Spec. 2C, “Specification for Offshore Cranes” (1995), into its regulations at §§ 250.108(c) and (d) and § 250.198(e), effective March 17, 2003 (68 FR 7421).
On March 15, 2007, the MMS incorporated the Sixth Edition of API Spec. 2C (adopted by API in 2004) into the regulations at §§ 250.108(c) and (d) and § 250.198(e) in place of the Fifth Edition (72 FR 12088).
In March 2012, API approved the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C (effective in October 2012), reorganizing the standard and providing improved design and construction criteria for new pedestal-mounted cranes (
In addition, section 4 (“Documentation”) of the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C requires purchasers to supply certain information to manufacturers prior to purchasing a crane—and manufacturers to supply certain documentation to the purchaser—in order to ensure that cranes are designed and manufactured, in compliance with the Seventh Edition, to perform safely and properly under the conditions in which the cranes are expected to be used.
BSEE has reviewed the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C and determined that the revised edition should be incorporated into the regulations to ensure that lessees and operators are complying with the latest consensus industry practices and standards for cranes. If the Seventh Edition is incorporated into BSEE's regulations, it will require the use of up-to-date industry standard technology, processes, and design criteria to ensure that fixed platform operators mount cranes designed to operate safely in difficult offshore conditions. For example, the failure mode calculations and gross overload protection provisions in the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C would help reduce the potential risk of injury to personnel by, among other things:
Similarly, the Seventh Edition's provision for dual braking systems would improve hoisting efficiency and decrease stress on the crane motor and, thus, help prevent both unintended load drops and motor malfunctions. In addition, the Load Moment Indicator System provision would improve safety by alerting the operator (
Therefore, BSEE is proposing to amend §§ 250.108 and 250.198(h)(69) to incorporate, and to require that lessees and operators ensure compliance with, the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C for all cranes mounted after the effective date of the final rule on any fixed OCS platform without regard to when the platform was installed on the OCS.
Unlike the current regulations, compliance with the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C would not be tied to the date of manufacture of the crane or the date that the fixed platform was installed on the OCS. The original promulgation of § 250.108(c) and (d) in 2003 marked the first time that MMS required lessees and operators to ensure that the cranes on fixed platforms complied with the criteria of the version of API Spec. 2C then in effect (
In 2007, when MMS amended §§ 250.108(c) and (d) and 250.198 to require compliance with the Sixth Edition of API Spec. 2C in lieu of the Fifth Edition, MMS retained the original threshold applicability date (March 17, 2003) in § 250.108 for manufacture of cranes and for installation of platforms. There was no need at that time to change the threshold date because the criteria for design and manufacture of cranes in the Sixth Edition were very similar to those in the Fifth Edition, which had been in effect under § 250.108 since March 2003.
By contrast, the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C makes significant changes to the criteria in the Sixth Edition. These changes will result in improvements, as previously described, to safety and personnel protection on fixed platforms. Cranes that meet the specifications of the Sixth Edition may not necessarily meet all of the specifications of the Seventh Edition and would not necessarily achieve the same level of safety afforded by cranes that meet the specifications of the Seventh Edition.
In light of those changes, and the fact that the industry has been required to comply with prior editions of API Spec. 2C for over 10 years, the original March 2003 threshold applicability date is no
We also propose, in accordance with § 250.108(c) and (d) of the current regulations, to allow lessees and operators to continue to use cranes that comply with the Sixth Edition of API Spec. 2C if they mount (or mounted) a crane on a fixed platform between March 17, 2003, and the effective date of the new final rule and:
However, because the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C has been in voluntary use by the industry since October 2012, we propose to amend § 250.108 to give lessees and operators the option of ensuring that any cranes mounted after October 2012 and before the effective date of the new final rule comply with the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C in lieu of the Sixth Edition. Currently, § 250.198(c) allows a lessee or operator to comply with a later edition of any incorporated standard, provided that the lessee or operator shows that the later edition is at least as protective as the incorporated standard and obtains prior written approval from BSEE. The proposed amendment to allow compliance with either the Sixth or Seventh Edition for cranes mounted between October 2012 and the effective date of the new final rule would simply eliminate the need for such a showing and for prior BSEE approval.
Finally, we propose to add a new definition to § 250.105 for “fixed platform,” solely as used in § 250.108. The Sixth Edition of API Spec. 2C used and defined the term “fixed platform” in virtually the same way as that term is currently defined in API Recommended Practice 2D, “Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Cranes” (Sixth Edition, May 2007) (API RP 2D), which is incorporated by reference in § 250.108(a). However, the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C largely replaced the term “fixed platform” with the term “bottom-supported structure,” which is defined in a way very similar to the definition of “fixed platform” in the Sixth Edition of API Spec. 2C. In fact, the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C frequently uses the terms “bottom-supported structure” and “fixed platform” interchangeably.
To avoid confusion, however, we propose to add to § 250.105 a definition of “fixed platform,” as used in § 250.108, that is consistent with the definition of “bottom-supported structure” in the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C, as well as with the definition of “fixed platform” in API RP 2D. In addition, the proposed new definition would be compatible with the definition of “fixed platform” in API RP 2A–WSD, “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design” (Twenty-first Edition, reaffirmed October 2010) and with the definition of OCS “facility” in 30 CFR 250.105.
On May 13, 2013, the USCG proposed to incorporate the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C into USCG regulations at 46 CFR parts 107 through 109 for cranes installed on mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), offshore supply vessels (OSVs), and floating OCS facilities (
The USCG proposal would also incorporate, and require compliance with, the Sixth Edition of API RP 2D for operation and maintenance of cranes on MODUs, OSVs, and floating OCS facilities in 46 CFR parts 107–109 (
In addition to proposing to require lessees and operators to ensure that the cranes on their fixed platforms comply with the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C, we are considering whether there are ways to verify that new cranes have been fabricated pursuant to that API standard. For example, we are considering whether lessees and operators should ensure that cranes mounted on their fixed platforms in the future are constructed and marked in accordance with a quality management system such as API Specification Q1, “Specification for Quality Programs for the Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industry,” Ninth Edition (2014) (API Spec. Q1). Accordingly, we request comments on whether API Spec. Q1, or any similar quality management systems (such as those found in the International Standards Organization 9000 collection of standards), could help to ensure the overall reliability and safety of cranes.
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) provides that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), will review all significant rules. BSEE has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 because:
In particular, BSEE has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on the offshore oil and gas industry because BSEE includes existing industry standards in the baselines for economic analyses for regulations. OMB Circular A–4, which provides guidance to Federal agencies on the preparation of economic analyses under E.O. 12866, states that the economic baseline represents the agency's best assessment of what the world would be like absent the action. Thus, the baseline should include all practices that already exist, and that would continue to exist, even if the new regulations were never imposed.
Since consensus industry standards represent generally accepted industry practices and expectations for use in operations, and are developed and written by industry experts and approved by the industry itself, we understand and expect that industry follows such standards (or similar best practices) to ensure safety and reliability of operations. Therefore, BSEE includes relevant existing standards in the baseline when considering the potential economic impacts of its regulatory actions. Accordingly, because this proposed rule would simply incorporate the Seventh Edition of API Spec. 2C, which has been in effect since October 2012, BSEE has not prepared an economic analysis for, and OIRA has not reviewed, this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 (E.O. 13563) reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. In addition, E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. It also emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
BSEE certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BSEE, call 1–888–734–3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration (SBA) without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the SBA will be investigated for appropriate action.
This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This proposed rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501,
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. Thus, a Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule would not
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988 (E.O. 12988). Specifically, this rule:
We have evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's tribal consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it would have no substantial effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the department's policy is not required.
BSEE has determined that this proposed regulation does not contain new information collection requirements pursuant to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule meets the criteria set forth in 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 15.4C(1) for a categorical exclusion because it involves modification of existing regulations, the impacts of which would be limited to administrative, economic, or technological effects with minimal environmental impacts.
We also analyzed this proposed rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances set forth in 43 CFR 46.215, that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for actions otherwise eligible for a categorical exclusion. We concluded that this rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.
In developing this proposed rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554, App. C sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153–154).
This proposed rule would not be a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because:
Thus, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rulemaking we publish must:
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference, Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur development and production, Sulphur exploration.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) If you installed a fixed platform after March 17, 2003, and before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]:
(1) All cranes mounted on the fixed platform on or after March 17, 2003, and before October 1, 2012, must meet the requirements of American Petroleum Institute Specification for Offshore Pedestal-mounted Cranes (API Spec. 2C), Sixth Edition (2004), as incorporated by reference in § 250.198(h)(69)(i); and
(2) All cranes mounted on the fixed platform on or after October 1, 2012, and before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], must meet either the
(d) If you installed a fixed platform before March 17, 2003, and mounted a crane on the fixed platform before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and
(1) The crane was manufactured after March 17, 2003, and before October 1, 2012, the crane must meet the requirements of API Spec. 2C, Sixth Edition;
(2) The crane was manufactured on or after October 1, 2012, the crane must meet either the requirements of API Spec. 2C, Sixth Edition, or API Spec. 2C, Seventh Edition.
(e) If you mount a crane on a fixed platform after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the crane must meet the requirements of API Spec. 2C, Seventh Edition.
(h) * * *
(69) API Spec. 2C, Specification for Offshore Pedestal-mounted Cranes:
(i) Sixth Edition, March 2004, Effective Date: September 2004, API Stock No. G02C06; incorporated by reference at § 250.108(c) and (d);
(ii) Seventh Edition, March 2012, Effective Date: October 2012, API Product No. G02C07; incorporated by reference at § 250.108(c), (d) and (e);
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on three specific issues related to the establishment of a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550–3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). These issues are: Defining “use” of Priority Access License frequencies; implementing secondary markets in Priority Access Licenses; and optimizing protections for Fixed Satellite Services.
Submit comments on or before July 15, 2015 and reply comments on or before August 14, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12–354, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Paul Powell, Attorney Advisor, Wireless Bureau—Mobility Division at (202) 418–1613 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 12–354, FCC 15–47, adopted on April 17, 2015 and released April 21, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
We note that our
This
On April 21, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission released a
In the
The
Incumbent users represent the highest tier in the new 3.5 GHz framework and receive interference protection from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Protected incumbents include the federal operations described above, as well as FSS and, for a finite period, grandfathered terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650–3700 MHz portion of the band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself consists of two tiers—Priority Access and GAA—both authorized in any given location and frequency by an SAS. As the name suggests, Priority Access operations receive protection from GAA operations. Priority Access Licenses (PALs), defined as an authorization to use a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract for three years, will be assigned in up to 70 megahertz of the 3550–3650 MHz portion of the band. GAA will be allowed, by rule, throughout the 150 megahertz band. GAA users will receive no interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. In general, under this three-tiered licensing framework incumbent users will be able to operate on a fully protected basis, while the technical benefits of small cells are leveraged to facilitate innovative and efficient uses in the 3.5 GHz Band.
In the
According to Pierre de Vries, the Commission could specify the “maximum allowed resulting signal strength at the protected receiver and let an SAS calculate the allowed GAA transmit power.” AT&T suggests that 3GPP standards for TD–LTE channel occupancy could be used to determine channel usage. Federated Wireless proposes that GAA devices could provide the SAS with “spectrum sensing data” upon initial operation and at regular intervals as directed by the SAS. Federated Wireless recommends that an industry group be convened to develop the details of such a sensing framework, including the measurement procedure, reporting protocol, and occupancy and evacuation times. WISPA proposes that “any CBSD that has not received 300 end-user packets within each five-minute interval would be deemed by the SAS to be not `in use.' ” Other commenters, including Microsoft, PISC, and Shared Spectrum Company suggest that GAA use be permitted in PAL spectrum until a Priority Access licensee affirmatively requests access to its PAL from the SAS. InterDigital suggests that evacuation commands be signaled to GAA users via the SAS, which will allow for flexible channel evacuation times.
We seek comment on whether we should adopt an engineering definition of “use.” We ask proponents of this approach to develop, in detail, an engineering methodology along with technical criteria and metrics that could be readily implemented by multiple, coordinated SASs. We also ask proponents to address some specific concerns about the engineering approach.
First, we note Verizon's observation that there may be occasions when a vacant channel performs a productive use, for example by serving as a guard band. Is this claim valid given the technical rules we have adopted in the
Second, we speculate that it might be possible for Priority Access licensees to deploy low-cost CBSDs whose main purpose is to trigger SAS protections. We further observe that policing “license savers” has historically been a very challenging and administratively costly endeavor for the Commission. How could we prevent such gaming of the use-or-share rules, while maintaining our goals of technological flexibility, administrative simplicity, and light-touch regulation?
Third, the prospect of basing determinations of “use” on aggregate interference metrics raises equitable and coordination challenges with respect to the GAA tier. As discussed above, reliance on aggregate interference begs the question of which GAA user will be denied access when the aggregate threshold is exceeded. Therefore, we are not comfortable delegating this decision to third parties absent the adoption of an equitable and non-discriminatory methodology. We seek comment on whether and how aggregate metrics could be used to facilitate coordination among multiple SASs? Would the use of aggregate metrics introduce complexities that would outweigh the potential benefits of using such metrics? If we were to utilize an approach based on aggregate interference, how could we overcome these significant concerns? Alternatively, are there simpler, non-aggregate engineering metrics available that sidestep our concerns, perhaps with slightly less optimal spectrum utilization?
We seek comment on whether Lehr's economic construction of “use” would be appropriate for determining GAA admission to PAL frequencies as the concept may provide a potential way to avoid some of the concerns raised above with respect to an engineering approach. At the same time, the proposal raises other issues, some of which, as noted above, Lehr discusses in his comments. We seek comment on these concerns.
First, we seek comment on hoarding. Would the option framework encourage or discourage hoarding of PAL spectrum? How does the risk of hoarding using options compare against the risk of hoarding through deployment of low-cost CBSDs (discussed above) in an engineering-based approach?
Second, how should we think about the payments and pricing of PALs? In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on employing its existing rules to address upfront, down and final payments by winning bidders, applications for licenses by winning bidders, as well as the processing of such applications and default by and disqualification of winning bidders. The Commission sought comment on whether its existing rules required any revisions in connection with the conduct of an auction of PALs. We did not receive a sufficient record to determine what payment, application, and default rule revisions are necessary in adopting a less traditional approach to licensing the PAL spectrum. For instance, if we adopt the economic definition of “use” proposed above, would a 50/50 split between initial payments and an option “strike” price provide appropriate incentives for PAL use (or non-use)? We also seek renewed comment on the other payment, application and default questions raised in the FNPRM in the event that we adopt one of the proposals discussed above.
Third, how would the options approach fit not only with our auctions authority under 47 U.S.C. 309(j) but also decades of experience in holding auctions? Would an option scheme, such as that proposed here, be sufficiently distinguishable from the Commission's prior use of installment payments since under this proposal the full rights in the license would presumably not be perfected until the time of a second payment? Would the use of a two-payment option, in practice, lead to complications similar to those experienced in the past with installment payments? Is the Commission's existing legal authority sufficient to permit it to adopt auction and payment rules to implement this option? We note that our auction authority is limited to the award of an initial “license” (or permit), and that the Act defines a license not as the right to exclude others but rather as an “instrument of authorization . . . for the use or operation of apparatus for transmission . . .” In the case of the options approach, could economic performance serve as a legally viable substitute for traditional build out or service-based performance requirements? Are there any statutory or other legal considerations that the Commission should consider in revising its existing payment, application and default rules to accommodate these proposals?
In the
Relatively few commenters addressed the significant issues associated with the potential application of our secondary market rules to the transfer of PALs. Commenters who did address the issue were generally supportive of a framework in which PALs can been traded in the secondary market. These commenters note that the development of a robust secondary market in the 3.5 GHz Band would be beneficial for potential Priority Access Licensees. AT&T, for example, believes that flexibility in the deployment of PALs will be important to both commercial operators and other Priority Access Licensees as PAL use may be short term,
Some commenters support the development of one or more spectrum exchanges, operating pursuant to our secondary market rules, which could facilitate a vibrant and deep market for PAL rights. Such an exchange could improve the ability of individual licensees to obtain micro-targeted (in geography, time, and bandwidth) access to priority spectrum rights narrowly tailored to their needs on a highly
We believe that it is in the public interest to develop a fuller record on the implications of applying our secondary market rules to the 3.5 GHz Band ecosystem. While we agree with commenters on the record thus far that application of our secondary market rules will increase liquidity of the spectrum as well as reduce costs and increase flexibility of use, we seek additional information on how we should implement the rules with respect to the 3.5 GHz Band. To the extent that commenters agree with this concept, we request specific and focused comment on any necessary changes to our Part 1 rules to facilitate the secondary market for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. For example, regarding partitioning and disaggregation, our initial view is to prohibit such further segmentation of PALs given their relatively small size (census tracts) and limited duration (three years) as well as the availability of significant GAA spectrum in all license areas. Some commenters, however, urge the Commission to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs. We seek comment on this proposal. Would partitioning and disaggregation of PALs benefit the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or would such flexibility prove administratively burdensome and unnecessary given the size and duration of these licenses? We also seek comment on the potential use of spectrum exchanges to facilitate the transfer of PALs in the secondary market. Would such exchanges be mandatory or could the existing Part 1 rules, in combination with the SAS framework adopted in the
For secondary markets purposes, we also seek comment on the application of our spectrum aggregation limits for PAL licensees. Should we use the attribution standard applied in our existing rules to transactions involving mobile wireless licenses for commercial use? We also seek comment on how this standard can reflect the need for a streamlined process, potentially through a database administrator, for transactions involving PALs. In addition, we seek comment on the application of our spectrum aggregation limit in the context of the initial licensing of PALs, including how any unique characteristics of PAL auctions, such as the need for streamlined processing, should be taken into account in resolving this issue.
We raise five topics for consideration in the
We propose that co-channel Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) and End User Device signal levels up to this threshold be permissible, at the antenna output after FSS earth station antenna gain and discrimination per section 25.209(a)(3) of our rules. We propose that the SAS will calculate the distance, bearing, and elevation differences between registered FSS earth stations and each CBSD that requests activation. The SAS will then authorize CBSD activation if it is at or beyond the permissible distance, and deny CBSD activation if is less than the permissible distance from the earth station. How should existing link budget margins be treated in establishing value(s) for interference protection criteria, where such margins are built in to FSS earth station link budgets to account for rain attenuation, and other impairments? What is the statistical and temporal correlation of environmental effects that may not be independent nor occur simultaneously (
As discussed above, we recognize that our stringent out-of-band emissions limit of 70 + 10 Log (P),
We seek comment on whether the received power interference protection criteria for out-of-band FSS earth stations should be the same or different from co-channel protections. Can a default protection area be defined based on these criteria and specific assumptions about FSS earth station receiving system G/T and minimum antenna elevation angle? For example, a C-Band licensee with an earth station having a low elevation angle above heavily populated areas may desire protection beyond that afforded with the required out-of-band emission limit. The licensee may register the earth station, including the antenna gain pattern. This information could be used by an SAS to calculate the requisite protection distance near the main beam to enable closer CBSD operation in the back of the earth station where there is higher antenna discrimination and ensure that the IPC is not exceeded.
Moreover, we agree with Google that market incentives may be feasible to encourage industry to deploy radios with improved (lower) adjacent emissions and thereby have greater access to spectrum. However, we do not see how this can be accomplished
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
We note that our
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
☐
☐
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Comments, reply comments, and
To request information in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted and proposed in this document, respectively. The IRFA is set forth in
This
Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise requirements for special contracting methods and updates eliminating out of date references and reorganizes the text to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This second proposed rule incorporates many of the changes of the proposed rule and makes additional modifications to the text.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 14, 2015 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by GSAR case 2007–G500 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification about content, contact Ms. Janet Fry at 703–605–3167 or
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise sections of GSAR part 517 that provide requirements for special contracting methods.
GSA published a proposed rule in the
The case is being issued as a second proposed rule due to the additional edits made to GSAR part 517 and the length of time since the proposed rule was published in 2008.
The second proposed rule:
• Updates the statutes cited in GSAR 517.109.
• Deletes GSAR 517.200(b), GSAR 517.202(iv), GSAR 517.202(v), and GSAR 517.207(a) and makes conforming changes.
• Replaces the content of GSAR 517.203 with new text, cross referencing the requirements in FAR 22.407 when using option provisions that extend the term of a construction contract.
• Adds a new paragraph at GSAR 517.207(b) that reminds contracting officers to seek new wage determinations when exercising options that extend the term of the contract.
• Addresses other administrative and typographical updates.
The following proposed changes were not retained in the second proposed rule:
• 517.202(c) was not retained as FAR 7.105 already requires contracting officers to address options in acquisition plans.
• 517.203(c) was not retained as availability of funds is part of the FAR 17.207 determination.
No comments on the proposed rule were received from the public by the August 5, 2008 closing date.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to
GSA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the subparts affected by the rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, GSAR case 2007–G500, in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply as the rule does not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 517 and 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
This subpart applies to all GSA contracts for supplies and services, including:
(a) Services involving construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property.
(b) Architect-engineer services.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The use of multiyear contracting authority is inappropriate and the contracting officer anticipates a need for additional supplies or services beyond the basic contract term.
Construction solicitations and contracts which contain options that extend the term of the contract must include one of the three clauses described at FAR 22.407(e), (f) or (g).
In addition to the requirements of FAR 17.207, the contracting officer must also:
(a) Determine that the contractor's performance under the contract met or exceeded the Government's expectation for quality performance, unless another circumstance justifies an extended contractual relationship; and
(b) Obtain a new wage determination if the Service Contract Act (FAR 22.1007) or the Davis-Bacon Act (FAR 22.404–12) applies.
(c) Determine that the option price is fair and reasonable.
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
The revision reads as follows:
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 15, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Without the collection of this information, PDS cannot conduct training events to educate Federal, State and private veterinarians on eradication of diseases and sample collection.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice.
The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (the Secretary) announces the establishment of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016) in-quota aggregate quantity of raw cane sugar at 1,117,195 metric tons raw value (MTRV). The Secretary also announces the establishment of the FY 2016 in-quota aggregate quantity of certain sugars, syrups, and molasses (also referred to as refined sugar) at 132,000 MTRV.
Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., AgStop 1021, Washington, DC 20250–1021; by telephone (202) 720–2916; by fax (202) 720–0876; or by email
The provisions of paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) authorize the Secretary to establish the in-quota tariff-rate quota (TRQ) amounts (expressed in terms of raw value) for imports of raw cane sugar and certain sugars, syrups, and molasses that may be entered under the subheadings of the HTS subject to the lower tier of duties during each fiscal year. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the allocation of these quantities among supplying countries and areas.
Section 359(k) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, requires that at the beginning of the quota year the Secretary of Agriculture establish the TRQs for raw cane sugar and refined sugars at the minimum levels necessary to comply with obligations under international trade agreements, with the exception of specialty sugar.
Notice is hereby given that I have determined, in accordance with paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in the HTS and section 359(k) of the 1938 Act, that an aggregate quantity of up to 1,117,195 MTRV of raw cane sugar may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during FY 2016. This is the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements. I have further determined that an aggregate quantity of 132,000 MTRV of sugars, syrups, and molasses may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during FY 2016. This quantity includes the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements, 22,000 MTRV, of which 20,344 MTRV is established for any sugars, syrups and molasses, and 1,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugar. An additional amount of 110,000 MTRV is added to the specialty sugar TRQ for a total of 111,656 MTRV.
Because the specialty sugar TRQ is first-come, first-served, tranches are needed to allow for orderly marketing throughout the year. The FY 2016 specialty sugar TRQ will be opened in five tranches. The first tranche, totaling 1,656 MTRV, will open October 9, 2015. All specialty sugars are eligible for entry under this tranche. The second tranche will open on October 23, 2015, and be equal to 27,500 MTRV. The remaining tranches will each be equal to 27,500 MTRV, with the third opening on January 8, 2016; the fourth, on April 8, 2016; and the fifth, on July 8, 2016. The second, third, fourth, and fifth tranches will be reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced commercially in the United States or reasonably available from domestic sources.
* Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice.
The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is providing notice of an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2015 refined sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 20,000 metric tons raw value (MTRV), all of which will be reserved for specialty sugars.
Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., AgStop 1021, Washington, DC 20250–1021; by telephone (202) 720–2916; by fax (202) 720–0876.
The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is providing notice of an increase in the FY 2015 (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015) refined sugar TRQ with all 20,000 MTRV reserved for specialty sugar. Imports of all specialty sugar will be administered on a first-come, first-served basis. This additional tranche is reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced commercially in the United States or reasonably available from domestic sources. The sucrose content, by weight in the dry state, of such sugar must have a polarimeter reading of 99.5 degrees or more. Entries of specialty sugar under this additional tranche will be permitted beginning July 10, 2015. The previously announced tranche of 22,050 MTRV opening on July 10, 2015, will remain unchanged.
On September 4, 2014, the Office of the Secretary announced the establishment of the in-quota quantity of the FY 2015 refined sugar TRQ at 127,000 MTRV. (79 FR 52625) This amount included the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements (22,000 MTRV of which 1,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugars) and an additional 105,000 MTRV for specialty sugars. Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and Section 359k of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, I hereby give notice of an increase in the refined sugar TRQ of 20,000 MTRV. With this increase, the overall FY 2015 refined sugar TRQ will be 147,000 MTRV, of which 126,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugars.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2015 applications for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program as authorized by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235). Approximately $5.8 million is available to be competitively awarded. The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Eligible applicants include a non-profit corporation or an institution of higher education. The Agency is encouraging applications that direct grants to projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and its commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
Completed applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2015. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.
Electronic applications must be received by July 27, 2015 to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov Web site at
You should contact a USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Offices can be found at
Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at
Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop Mail Stop-3253, Room 4208—South, Washington, DC 20250–3253, (202) 690–1374.
Paper applications must be postmarked, mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2015, or it will not be considered for funding. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Electronic applications must be received by
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570–0006.
The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–79). You should become familiar with the regulations for this program published at 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, which are incorporated by reference in this Notice. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $200,000. Grants are available for non-profit corporations or higher education institutions only. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Grant funds may be used to pay for 95 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development, when the applicant is a 1994 Institution as defined by 7 U.S.C. 301. The 1994 Institutions are commonly known as Tribal Land Grant Institutions. Centers may have the expertise on staff or they can contract out for the expertise, to assist individuals or entities in the startup, expansion or operational improvement of rural businesses, especially cooperative or mutually-owned businesses.
The terms you need to understand are defined and published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504. In addition, the terms “rural” and “rural area,” defined at section 343(a)(13) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)), are incorporated by reference, and will be used for this program instead of those terms currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean “you” the applicant. Finally, there has been some confusion on the Agency's meaning of the terms “conflict of interest” and “mutually-owned business,” because they are not defined in the CONACT or in the regulations used for the program. Therefore, the terms are clarified and should be understood as follows.
Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals cannot apply for this program. See 7 CFR 4284.507. You must also meet the following requirements:
a. An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.6. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgement against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.
b. Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation.
c. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6. a and b. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6. a. and b. precludes the agency from making a federal award.
d. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.e., and will not be reviewed.
Your matching funds requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent for 1994 Institutions). See 7 CFR 4284.508. When you calculate your matching funds requirement, please round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate. An example of how to calculate your matching funds is as follows:
a. Take the amount of grant funds you are requesting and divide it by .75. This will give you your total project cost.
b. Subtract the amount of grant funds you are requesting from your total project cost. This will give you your matching funds requirement.
c. A quick way to double check that you have the correct amount of matching funds is to take your total project cost and multiply it by .25.
You must verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and provide this documentation with your application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2.e.8. If you are awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds.
Other rules for matching funds that you must follow are listed below.
• They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.
• They must be from eligible sources.
• They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.
• They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.
• They cannot include board/advisory council members' time.
• They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.
• They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside the grant period.
• They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.
• They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.
• They cannot include any project costs that are unallowable under the applicable grant “Cost Principles,” including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulation.
• They can include loan funds from a Federal source.
• They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if you have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. You must include an explanation of this policy in your application or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.
• You must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.
• In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by you cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Your application must propose the establishment or continuation of a cooperative development center concept. You must use project funds, including grant and matching funds for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the centers (see 7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(4)(C) (vi)).
All project activities must be for the benefit of a rural area.
Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of the applicant name) that include the same Executive Director and/or advisory boards or committees of an existing center, both applications will be determined not eligible for funding.
Your application must include a one-year grant period or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2015, and no later than January 1, 2016. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if you are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
Your application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet an eligibility criterion by time of application deadline and does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. In particular, you must include all of the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the regulation and as clarified further in this Notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency. For more information on what is required for an application, see 7 CFR 4284.510.
If you have an existing RCDG award, you must discuss the status of your existing RCDG award at application time under the Eligibility Discussion. You must be performing satisfactorily to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports and being current on all tasks as approved in the work plan. The Agency will use its discretion to make this determination. In addition, if you have an existing award from the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, formerly known as the Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants (SSDPG) program, you must discuss the status of your existing SSDPG award at application time under Eligibility Discussion and be performing satisfactorily to be considered for a new RCDG award.
Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.
For further information, you should contact your State Office at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. If you submit in paper form, any forms requiring signatures must include an original signature.
To submit an application electronically, you must use the Grants.gov Web site at
You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.
When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
You must submit all of your application documents electronically through Grants.gov. Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded.
After electronically submitting an application through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at:
Your application must contain all of the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.510 and as otherwise clarified in this Notice. Specifically, your application must include: (1) The required forms as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(b) and (2) the required proposal elements as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(c). If your application is incomplete, it is ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the application template found at
• Standard Form (SF) 424—Your DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Since there are no specific fields for a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on Form SF 424. In addition, you should provide the DUNS number and the CAGE code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
• Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the
• You can voluntarily fill out and submit the “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” as part of your application if you are a nonprofit organization.
1. You must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information on the Title Page.
2. You must include a Table of Contents with page numbers for each component of the application to facilitate review.
3. Your Executive Summary must include the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(3), and also discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. It should not exceed two pages.
4. Your Eligibility Discussion must not exceed two pages and cover how you meet the eligibility requirements for applicant, matching funds, other eligibility requirements and grant period. If you have an existing RCDG or the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, formerly known as the Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants (SSDPG) program award or both, you must discuss the current status of those award(s) under grant period eligibility.
5. Your Proposal Narrative must not exceed 40 pages and should describe the essential aspects of the project.
i. You are only required to have one title page for the proposal.
ii. If you list the evaluation criteria on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually address each criterion in narrative form, then it is not necessary for you to include an Information Sheet. Otherwise, the Information Sheet is required under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(ii).
iii. You should include the following under Goals of the Project:
iv. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures.
• Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.
• Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.
• Number of cooperatives assisted.
• Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.
• Number of cooperatives incorporated.
• Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.
• Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.
• Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
• Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization as a result of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that have been lost if your organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.
v. You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator (
vi. You must describe in the application how you will undertake to do each of the following. We would prefer if you described these undertakings within proposal evaluation criteria to reduce duplication in your application. The specific proposal evaluation criterion where you should address each undertaking is noted below.
vii. You should present the Work Plan and Budget proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number h., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h. of this Notice to reduce duplication in your application.
viii. You should present the Delivery of Cooperative development assistance proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number b., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.b. of this Notice.
ix. You should present the Qualifications of Personnel proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number i., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.i. of this Notice.
x. You should present the Local Support and Future Support proposal elements under proposal evaluation criterion number j., utilizing the requirements of Section E.1.j. of this Notice.
xi. Your application will not be considered for funding if you do not address all of the proposal evaluation criteria. See Section E.1. of this Notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.
xii. Only appendices A–C will be considered when evaluating your application. You must not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.
6. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.
7. You must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds
8. You must provide documentation in your application to verify all of your proposed matching funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of your application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. Template letters are available for each type of matching funds contribution at
a. If matching funds are to be provided in cash, you must meet the following requirements.
• You: The application must include a statement verifying (1) the amount of the cash and (2) the source of the cash. You may also provide a bank statement dated 30 days or less from the application deadline date to verify your cash match.
• Third-party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) how much cash will be donated and (2) that it will be available corresponding to the proposed grant period or donated on a specific date within the grant period.
b. If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, you must meet the following requirements.
• You: The application must include a signed letter from you or your authorized representative verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (
• Third-Party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (
To ensure that you are identifying and verifying your matching funds appropriately, please note the following:
• If you are paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and you must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official (
• If you have already received cash from a third-party (
• Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.
• You can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.
• If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.
• Expected program income may not be used to fulfill your matching funds requirement at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.
• The valuation process you use for in-kind contributions does not need to be included in your application, but you must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if you are awarded a grant. The grant award may be withdrawn or the amount of the grant reduced if you cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.
Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F, Federal Award Administration.
In order to be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705–5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
The Agency may not make a Federal award to you until you have complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements. If you have not fully complied with requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use this determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2015, to be eligible for grant funding. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be deemed ineligible.
Electronic applications must be received by
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House Web site:
a. Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes (see 7 CFR 4284.10). Also, you shall not use project funds for the following:
• To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;
• To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;
• To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists;
• To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or
• To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.
b. In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
• Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or mutually-owned business;
• Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or
• Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the matching funds amount constitutes the total project costs.
We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs, as long as the remaining costs are determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.
a. You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in hard copy or electronically. Applications submitted in hard copy should be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
b. National Environmental Policy Act
All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G and any successor regulations. However, technical assistance awards under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1940.310(e), and do not require any additional documentation.
c. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements
All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.
Scoring criteria will follow criteria published at 7 CFR 4284.513 as supplemented below including any amendments made by the Section 6013 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–234), which is incorporated by reference in this Notice. The regulatory and statutory criteria are clarified and supplemented below. You should also include information as described in Section D.2.e.5.vi. if you choose to address these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 100. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the following criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well-enough at time of application to address its capabilities for meeting these criteria.
a. Administrative capabilities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated track record in carrying out activities in support of development assistance to cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. At a minimum, you must discuss the following administrative capabilities:
1. Financial systems and audit controls;
2. Personnel and program administration performance measures;
3. Clear written rules of governance; and
4. Experience administering Federal grant funding no later than the last 5 years, including but not limited to past RCDGs. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s) and the amount(s) of funding received.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate that the Center has independent governance. For applicants that are universities or parent organizations, you should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.
b. Technical assistance and other services (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated expertise no later than the last 5 years in providing technical assistance and accomplishing effective outcomes in rural areas to promote and assist the development of cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. You must discuss at least:
1. Your potential for delivering effective technical assistance;
2. The types of assistance provided;
3. The expected effects of that assistance;
4. The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and
5. The transferability of your cooperative development strategies and focus to other areas of the U.S.
A chart or table showing the outcomes of your demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.5.iv. or as identified in your award document on previous RCDG awards. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2011–FY 2013 awards. We prefer that you provide one chart or table separating out award years. The intention here is for you to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years even though your grant period for the award was for the next calendar or fiscal year. Please provide a narrative explanation if you have not received a RCDG award.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide more than 3 years of outcomes and can demonstrate that the organizations you assisted within the last 5 years are sustainable. Additional outcome information should be provided on RCDG grants awarded before FY 2011. Please describe specific project(s) when addressing a–e of this paragraph.
c. Economic development (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated ability to facilitate:
1. Establishment of cooperatives or mutually owned businesses;
2. New cooperative approaches (
3. Retention of businesses, generation of employment opportunities or other factors, as applicable, that will otherwise improve the economic conditions of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide economic statistics showing the impacts of your past development projects no later than 5 years old and identify your role in the economic development outcomes.
d. Past performance in establishing legal business entities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities during FY 2012–FY 2014. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date of formation and your role in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. In addition, documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office (
e. Networking and regional focus (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated commitment to:
1. Networking with other cooperative development centers, and other organizations involved in rural economic development efforts, and
2. Developing multi-organization and multi-state approaches to addressing the economic development and cooperative needs of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate the outcomes of your multi-organizational and multi-state approaches. Please describe the project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.
f. Commitment (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to under-served and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States. You will score higher on this criterion if you define and describe the underserved and economically distressed areas within your service area, provide statistics, and identify projects within or affecting these areas, as appropriate.
g. Matching Funds (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment for the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching funds requirement. A chart or table should be provided to describe all matching funds being committed to the project. However, formal documentation to verify all of the matching funds must be included in Appendix A of your application. You will be scored on how you identify your matching funds.
1. If you met the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—1 point,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—3–4 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—5 points.
2. If you exceeded the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—2 points,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—6–7 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—10 points.
h. Work Plan/Budget (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.
You must discuss at a minimum:
1. Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds;
2. How customers will be identified;
3. Key personnel; and
4. The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.
You will score higher on this criterion if you present a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.
i. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine if the personnel expected to perform key tasks have a track record of:
1. Positive solutions for complex cooperative development and/or marketing problems; or
2. A successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to your success as determined by the tasks identified in the your work plan; and
3. Whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time
You will score higher on this criterion if you demonstrate commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.
j. Local and Future Support (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion.
1. Discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with state and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion. These letters should be included in Appendix B of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.
2. Discussion on future support will include your vision for funding operations in future years. You should document:
(i) New and existing funding sources that support your goals;
(ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and
(iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. Please discuss your strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.
You will score higher if you can demonstrate that your future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. There will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 15 funds are awarded and obligated. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Agency-approved Grant Agreement.
• Letter of Conditions.
• Form RD 1940–1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Form RD 1942–46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• Form AD–1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”
• Form RD 400–4, “Assurance Agreement.”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
• Form AD–3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:
a. A SF–425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the appropriate State Office at
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases
If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339 or (800) 845–6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on the following information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by August 14, 2015.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 690–4492. Fax: (202) 720–8435 or email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for revision.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 690–4492, Fax: (202) 720–8435 or email:
The RUS Form 595 is used as a requisition for advances of funds. The form helps to assure that loan funds are advanced only for the budget purposes and amount approved by RUS. According to the applicable provisions of the RUS loan contract, borrowers must certify with each request for funds to be approved for advance, which such funds are for projects previously approved.
When a prospective borrower requests and is granted a RUS loan, a loan contract is established between the Federal government, acting through the RUS Administrator, and the borrower. At the time this contract is entered into, the borrower must provide RUS with a list of projects for which loan funds will be spent, along with an itemized list of the estimated costs of these projects. Thus, the borrower receives a loan based upon estimated cost figures.
RUS Form 219, Inventory of Work Orders, is one of the documents the borrower submits to RUS to support actual expenditures and an advance of loan funds. The form also serves as a connecting link and provides an audit trail that originates with the advance of funds and terminates with evidence supporting the propriety of expenditures for construction or retirement projects.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205–3660, Fax: (202) 720–8435 or email:
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which the RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by August 14, 2015.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 690–4492. Fax: (202) 720–8435 or email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, Room 5164, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 690–4492; Fax: (202) 720–8435.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Telephone: (202) 205–3660, Fax: (202) 720–8435.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Thursday, June 25, 2015, for the purpose of discussing the Committee's project on equity in school expenditures and holding a public meeting on the rights of persons with disabilities. The meeting will be held at the Boise Main Library, 715 S. Capitol Boulevard, Marion Bingham Room, Boise, ID 83702. The session to discuss the Committee's project on equity in school expenditures is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. The session to receive information from invited panelists and the public on the rights of persons with disabilities is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by July 24, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angelica Trevino, Civil Rights Analyst, Western Regional Office, at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Thursday, June 25, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. MST.
Boise Main Library, 715 S. Capitol Blvd., Boise, ID 83702.
Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894–3437 or
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Palmdale, California, grantee of FTZ 191, requesting subzone status for the facility of Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. (Michaels), located in Lancaster, California. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of 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 June 9, 2015.
The proposed subzone (47 acres) is located at 3501 W. Avenue H, Lancaster, California. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 191.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 27, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 10, 2015.
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 Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Christopher Kemp at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, requesting an expansion of Subzone 22N on behalf of Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA). The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of 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 June 9, 2015.
Subzone 22N was approved on April 5, 2006 (Board Order 1440, 71 FR 19692, 4–17–2006), and manufacturing was authorized within the subzone on February 28, 2007 (Board Order 1503, 72 FR 10642, 3–9–2007). The subzone currently consists of the following site: Site 1 (34.9 acres)—25850 S. Ridgeland Avenue, Monee, Will County.
This request would add a site (69.7 acres) located at 29900 South Graaskamp Boulevard in Wilmington, Will County, to the subzone. The applicant is also requesting that Site 1 be removed from the subzone following a transition period to allow merchandise to be transferred to the new site. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. With this request, Subzone 22N would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 22.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 27, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 10, 2015.
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 Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 8, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results of the 2012–2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
As discussed below, the Department is relying on total adverse facts available with respect to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Golden Bird and Hejia, because both failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this administrative review. The Department is also finding 16 companies had no shipments during the period of review. These determinations and the final dumping margins are discussed below in the “Final Results” section of this notice.
Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1395.
Since the Department published the preliminary results of this administrative review,
The products subject to this antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0010, 0703.200020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently and is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that are raised in the briefs and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is in Appendix III of this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
For the final results, based on analysis of the comments received and our review of the record, the Department has made no changes to the
As discussed in the
As discussed in the
In the
Neither the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), nor the Department's regulations address the establishment of the rate applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of exports has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to avoid calculating an all-others rate using any rates that are zero,
We determine that, consistent with our
The Department determines that the following dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for such producers/exporters directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the weighted-average dumping margins indicated above (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has found that the following stocks are subject to overfishing or are in an overfished condition: Gulf of Maine/Northern Georges Bank red hake, which is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, is now subject to overfishing, but is not overfished; and Southeast Florida hogfish, which is jointly managed by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, is now subject to overfishing and is in an overfished condition. NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, notifies the appropriate fishery management council (Council) whenever it determines that overfishing is occurring, a stock is in an overfished condition, a stock is approaching an overfished condition, or when a rebuilding plan has not resulted in adequate progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding affected fish stocks.
Regina Spallone, (301) 427–8568.
Pursuant to sections 304(e)(2) and (e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2) and (e)(7), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils whenever it determines that a stock or stock complex is overfished or approaching an overfished condition; or if an existing rebuilding plan has not ended overfishing or resulted in adequate rebuilding progress. NMFS also notifies Councils when it determines a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing. Section 304(e)(2) further requires NMFS to publish these notices in the
NMFS has determined that the Gulf of Maine/Northern Georges Bank stock of red hake is now subject to overfishing. The New England Fishery Management Council has been informed that they must end overfishing on this stock.
NMFS has determined that the Southeast Florida stock of hogfish is now subject to overfishing and in an overfished condition. The Southeast Florida stock of hogfish was recently identified as a separate stock among a total of three hogfish stocks. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council have been informed that they must end overfishing and rebuild the Southeast Florida stock of hogfish.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 41 pre Data Workshop II webinar.
The SEDAR 41 assessments of the South Atlantic stocks of red snapper and gray triggerfish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Data Workshops; an Assessment Process; and a Review Workshop. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Data portion of the SEDAR process. See
A SEDAR 41 pre Data Workshop II webinar will be held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571–4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop(s); (2) Assessment Process; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop(s) is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of
The items of discussion in the pre Data Workshop webinar are as follows:
1. Progress update from SEDAR 41 working groups.
2. Participants will present summary data and discuss data needs and treatments as necessary to prepare for the SEDAR 41 Data Workshop II.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SEDAR office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Observer and Herring Committees to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The committees plan to review and discuss updated information and analyses for the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for NMFS-led omnibus amendment to establish provisions for industry-funded monitoring (IFM) across all Council-managed fisheries. They will also review and discuss the elements of options for industry-funded monitoring in the Atlantic herring fishery, including at-sea monitoring, portside sampling, and electronic monitoring (EM); develop recommendations regarding the specific combinations of measures (“packages”) to be analyzed in the Draft EA. Additionally, they will review updated information related to herring/mackerel economic analysis in omnibus IFM amendment. The committees will also discuss other elements of IFM amendment and develop related recommendations, as appropriate. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a procedure under which an application will be advanced out of turn (accorded special status) for examination if the applicant files a petition to make special with the appropriate showing. The USPTO is providing a temporary basis (the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot) under which an appellant may have an
Steven Bartlett, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, by telephone at 571–272–9797, or by electronic mail message at
Appeals to the Board are normally taken up for decision by the Board in the order in which they are docketed. The USPTO
The USPTO will accord special status to an appeal pending before the Board under the following conditions:
(1) A certification and petition under 37 CFR 41.3 must be filed by the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web) in the application involved in the
(2) The petition under 37 CFR 41.3 must include a request to withdraw the appeal in another application or
(3) The application involved in the appeal to be made special and the application or patent under reexamination involved in the appeal to be withdrawn must be either owned by the same party as of June 19, 2015, or name at least one inventor in common.
(4) The petition under 37 CFR 41.3 must be signed by a registered practitioner who has a power of attorney under 37 CFR 1.32, or has authority to act under 37 CFR 1.34, for the application involved in the appeal to be made special and for the application or patent under reexamination involved in the appeal to be withdrawn.
The USPTO has created a form-fillable Portable Document Format (PDF) “Petition to Make Special—Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot” (Form PTO/SB/438) for use in filing a certification and petition under 37 CFR 41.3 under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot. Form PTO/SB/438 is available on the USPTO's Internet Web site on the micro site for USPTO patent-related forms (
No petition fee is required. The $400.00 fee for a petition under 37 CFR 41.3 is hereby
The withdrawal of an appeal in an application or
MPEP § 1203 provides that an application made special and advanced out of turn for examination will continue to be special throughout its entire course of prosecution in the Office, including appeal, if any, to the Board. An appeal that is accorded special status for decision on an appeal to the Board under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot will be advanced similarly out of turn for a decision on the appeal by the Board. The difference between the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot and an application made special under 37 CFR 1.102 and MPEP § 708.02 is that an application in which an appeal is accorded special status for decision on an appeal to the Board under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot will not have a special status under CFR 1.102 and MPEP § 708.02 after the decision on the appeal.
The goal for handling an application in which a petition to make an appeal special under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot is filed is as follows: (1) Rendering a decision on the petition to make the appeal special no later than two (2) months from the filing date of the petition; and (2) rendering a decision on the appeal no later than four (4) months from the date a petition to make an appeal special under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot is granted. The current pendency of decided appeals in applications, for those appeals decided this fiscal year, ranges between an average of 24.7 months for appeals from applications assigned to Technology Center 1700 and an average of 32.5 months for appeals from applications assigned to Technology Center 1600, and is shown for each Technology Center in the following table:
The process for handling an application in which an appeal is withdrawn is set forth in MPEP § 1215. Appellants should specifically note that an application having no allowed claims becomes abandoned upon withdrawal of an appeal, and that claims indicated as
The filing of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 in an application on appeal to the Board is treated as a request to withdraw the appeal and to reopen prosecution of the application before the examiner.
As discussed previously, an application having no allowed claims becomes abandoned upon withdrawal of an appeal. Any request for continued examination, however, must be filed prior to the abandonment of the application.
A request for continued examination must include a submission.
The Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot is being adopted on a temporary basis until two thousand (2,000) appeals have been accorded special status under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot, or until June 20, 2016, whichever occurs earlier. The USPTO may extend the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot (with or without modification) on either a temporary or permanent basis, or may discontinue the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot after June 20, 2016, depending upon the results of the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot. Additional information concerning the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot, including statistical information concerning the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot and pendency of appeals before the Board, can found on the USPTO Internet Web site at:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting new OMB control number information for a collection of information, titled, “Regulation F: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 14, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Bureau Service Delivery.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 14, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
This submission is requesting OMB to renewal for additional three (3) years its approval of this generic information collection plan.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “we”), in accordance with section 743(c) of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3216), is announcing the availability of CPSC's service contract inventory for fiscal year (FY) 2014. This inventory provides information on service contract actions that exceeded $25,000 that CPSC made in FY 2014.
Eddie Ahmad, Procurement Analyst, Division of Procurement Services, Division of Procurement Services, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301–504–7884; email:
On December 16, 2009, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), Public Law 111–117, became law. Section 743(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, titled, “Service Contract Inventory Requirement,” requires agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or extended through the exercise of an option on or after April 1, 2010, and describes the contents of the inventory. The contents of the inventory must include:
(A) A description of the services purchased by the executive agency and the role the services played in achieving agency objectives, regardless of whether such a purchase was made through a contract or task order;
(B) The organizational component of the executive agency administering the contract, and the organizational component of the agency whose requirements are being met through contractor performance of the service;
(C) The total dollar amount obligated for services under the contract and the funding source for the contract;
(D) The total dollar amount invoiced for services under the contract;
(E) The contract type and date of award;
(F) The name of the contractor and place of performance;
(G) The number and work location of contractor and subcontractor employees, expressed as full-time equivalents for direct labor, compensated under the contract;
(H) Whether the contract is a personal services contract; and
(I) Whether the contract was awarded on a noncompetitive basis, regardless of date of award.
Consequently, through this notice, we are announcing that the CPSC's service contract inventory for FY 2014 is available to the public. The inventory provides information on service contract actions of more than $25,000 that CPSC made in FY 2014. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the CPSC. We developed the inventory in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011, by the OMB. (The OMB guidance is available at:
Council on Environmental Quality.
Notice of Availability of Implementing Instructions for Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.
The Managing Director of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued instructions to Federal agencies for incorporating sustainability practices into agency policies and practices, as required under Executive Order 13693 (“E.O. 13693”), “Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,” signed by President Obama on March 19, 2015, 80 FR 15871, March 25, 2015. The purpose of the Executive Order is to build a clean energy economy that will sustain our prosperity and the health of our people through Federal leadership in energy, water, fleet, buildings, and acquisition management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent over the next decade. Section 1 of E.O. 13693 directs agencies to “increase efficiency and improve their environmental performance . . . [to] help us protect our planet for future generations and save taxpayer dollars through avoided energy costs and increased efficiency, while also making federal facilities more resilient.” Section 4 of E.O. 13693 directs the Chair of CEQ to issue implementing instructions. The
The Instructions for Implementing Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade were issued on June 10, 2015.
The Instructions for Implementing Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade are available at:
Amy Porter, Office of Federal Sustainability, at
The Instructions apply only to Federal agencies, operations, and programs. Agencies are expected to implement the Instructions as part of their compliance with E.O. 13693.
U.S. Army Public Health Command, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 14, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the U.S. Army Public Health Command (USAPHC), 5158 Blackhawk Road, ATTN: Joyce Woods, (MCHB–CS–CP), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5403, or call the Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 428–6440.
Respondents are food vendors requesting to operate a business on a military installation or solicited by an installation command or military unit through the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Navy Exchange (NEX), Marine Corps Exchange (MCX), Family Morale, Welfare and Recreation (FMWR), or other sponsoring entity to operate a food establishment on the military installation or Department of Defense site. If the form is not completed during the application process, the Preventive Medicine assessment can only be conducted once the operation is set up on the installation. A pre-operational inspection is conducted before the facility is authorized to initiate service to the installation. Critical food safety violation found during the pre-operational inspection results in disapproval for the facility to operate. All critical violations must be corrected in order to gain operational approval; the installation command incurs the risk of a foodborne illness outbreak if a non-compliant food establishment is authorized to operate. The vendor's application to operate is retained on file with Preventive Medicine and does not need to be resubmitted by vendors whose services are intermittent throughout the year unless the scope of the operation has changed.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e), and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, revocable license, to U.S. Provisional Patent No. 62/086,355, filed December 2, 2014, entitled, “Novel Regimens of Tafenoquine For Prevention of Malaria in Malaria-Naïve Subjects,” U.S. Patent No. 6,479,660, issued November 12, 2002, entitled, “Process for the Preparation of Anti-Malarial Drugs,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,145,014, issued December 5, 2006, entitled “Process for the Preparation of Quinoline Derivatives.” The intended licensee is 60° Pharmaceuticals, LLC, with its principal place of business at 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR–JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702–5012.
For licensing issues, Barry M. Datlof, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619–0033. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619–7808, both at telefax (301) 619–5034.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Erica Johnson, 202–219–1373.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of revisions to the agenda for the June 25–26, 2015 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).
This meeting notice is an update to the notice (59 FR 16369) published on March 27, 2015. This notice sets forth revisions to the agenda, specifically, the removal of the petition for approval of a State Agency for Vocational Education based on compliance report submitted by Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs (PRHRDC). This notice is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Section 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
The NACIQI meeting will be held on June 25–26, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Sheraton Pentagon City, 900 S. Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8072, Washington, DC 20006.
Jennifer Hong, Executive Director, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8073, Washington, DC 20006–8129, telephone: (202) 502–7696, fax: (202) 502–7874, or email
• The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2, Part H, Title IV, of the HEA, as amended.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations or a specific State public postsecondary vocational education or nurse education approval agency.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1011c.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing a meeting of the SAB's 2015 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee to discuss draft recommendations for the chartered SAB regarding the Agency's 2015 STAA recipients. A portion of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting will be closed to the public.
The 2015 STAA Committee meeting dates are Thursday, July 9, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time), and Friday, July 10, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time). The public portion of the 2015 SAB STAA Committee meeting will be held on Friday, July 10, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Eastern Time). The remainder of the 2015 SAB STAA Committee meeting will be closed to the public.
The 2015 SAB STAA Committee meeting will be held at the George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., 1st Floor, Washington, DC 20052.
Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this announcement or the 2015 SAB STAA Committee meeting may contact Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer, by telephone: (202) 564–2134 or email at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and section (c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), the EPA has determined that a portion of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting will be closed to the public. The purpose of the closed portion of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting is for the 2015 SAB STAA Committee to discuss draft recommendations regarding recipients of the Agency's 2015 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards. The purpose of the open portion of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting which will occur on Friday, July 10, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Eastern Time) is to discuss administrative changes to the STAA nomination form and procedures, and the criteria for deciding which STAA nominations merit award.
The STAA awards are established to honor and recognize EPA employees who have made outstanding contributions in the advancement of science and technology through their research and development activities, as exhibited in publication of their results in peer reviewed journals. I have determined that a portion of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting will be closed to the public because it is concerned with recommending employees deserving of awards. In making these draft recommendations, the SAB requires full and frank advice from the 2015 STAA Committee. This advice will involve professional judgments on the relative merits of various employees and their respective work. Such personnel matters involve the discussion of information that is of a personal nature and the disclosure of which would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and, therefore, are protected from disclosure by section (c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Minutes of the 2015 STAA Committee meeting will be kept and certified by the chair.
Prior to the public portion of the meeting, the agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at
Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the topic of the public portion of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Hanlon at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Hanlon preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: Application for New and Amended Pesticide Registration and identified by EPA ICR No. 0277.17 and OMB Control No. 2070–0060, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on February 29, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0332, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Lily G. Negash, Field & External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 347–8515; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The producer of the pesticide must provide data from tests done according to EPA guidelines or other test methods that provide acceptable data. These tests must determine whether a pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects on humans, wildlife, fish and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms, as well as possible contamination of surface water or groundwater from leaching, runoff and spray drift. EPA also must approve the language that appears on each pesticide label. A pesticide product can only be used according to the directions on the labeling accompanying it at the time of sale, through its use and disposal. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR 152).
Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
Overall, there is a difference of 1,356,689 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the current ICR approved by OMB. This change reflects EPA's updating of the methodology used to estimate the paperwork burden, and including a previously unaccounted for burden for study data generation. However, there is a decrease of approximately 23,000 hours in the total estimated respondent burden for the registration application process compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's receipt of fewer number of applications. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements—40 CFR part 257, subpart B (EPA ICR No. 1745.08, OMB Control No. 2050–0154) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0278, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mailcode 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–9037; fax number: 703–308–8686; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0677, has been established for this
The docket for this
This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA.
1.
2.
3.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR Contaminated Media) (EPA ICR No. 1775.07, OMB Control No. 2050–161) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0343, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–5477; fax number: 703–308–8433; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Under § 264.1(j), owners/operators of remediation waste management sites must develop and maintain procedures to prevent accidents. These procedures must address proper design, construction, maintenance, and operation of hazardous remediation waste management units at the site. In addition, owners/operators must develop and maintain a contingency and emergency plan to control accidents that occur. The plan must explain specifically how to treat, store, and dispose of the hazardous remediation waste in question, and must be implemented immediately whenever fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that could threaten human health or the environment. In addition, the Remedial Action Plan streamlines the permitting process for remediation waste management sites to allow cleanups to take place more quickly.
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 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 PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 14, 2015. 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 Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694–1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 30, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210–2204:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 10, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding a new OMB information clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning the Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations—Representation and Notification. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before July 15, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0190 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations—Representation and Notification, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, at 202–208–4949 or email
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require additional actions by contractors to assist contracting officers in ensuring compliance with the Governmentwide statutory prohibition on the use of appropriated (or otherwise made available) funds for contracts with any foreign incorporated entity that is an inverted domestic corporation or to any subsidiary of such entity.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule at 79 FR 74558 on December 15, 2014, to revise the provisions of the FAR that address the continuing Governmentwide statutory prohibition (in effect since fiscal year 2008) on the use of appropriated (or otherwise made available) funds for contracts with any foreign incorporated entity that is an inverted domestic corporation (under section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 395) or any subsidiary of such entity. The rule modifies the existing representation and adds a requirement to notify the contracting officer if the contractor becomes an inverted domestic corporation, or a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation, during performance of the contract.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The annual reporting burden estimated as follows:
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Transportation Requirements.
Submit comments on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0061, Transportation Requirements, by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000–0061, Transportation Requirements.
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
FAR Part 47 contains policies and procedures for applying transportation and traffic management considerations in the acquisition of supplies. The FAR part also contains policies and procedures when acquiring transportation or transportation-related services. Generally, contracts involving transportation require information regarding the nature of the supplies, method of shipment, place and time of shipment, applicable charges, marking of shipments, shipping documents and other related items. Contractors are required to provide the information in accordance with the following FAR Part 47 clauses: 52.247–29 through 52.247–44, 52.247–48, 52.247–52, and 52.247–64. The information is used to ensure that: (1) Acquisitions are made on the basis most advantageous to the Government and; (2) supplies arrive in good order and condition, and on time at the required place.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0061, Transportation Requirements, in all correspondence.
The Office of Child Care (OCC) is completing the third 3-year cycle of case record reviews to meet the requirements for reporting under IPIA. The current forms and instructions expire September 30, 2015. OCC is submitting the information collection for renewal clearance with minor changes. Responders will now have additional guidance and clarification in the instructions and errors have been corrected. New language incorporates requirements from the 2014 Child Care and Development Fund Block Grant Act passed in November 2014.
Respondents: State grantees, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The Program was later expanded in response to legislation enacted by Congress to address the particular needs of persons with mental illness (24 U.S.C. Sections 321 through 329). Further refinements occurred in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 11490 (as amended) where HHS was given the responsibility to “develop plans and procedures for assistance at ports of entry to U.S. personnel evacuated from overseas areas, their onward movement to final destination, and follow-up assistance after arrival at final destination.” In addition, under E.O. 12656 (53 CFR 47491), “Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities,” HHS was given the lead responsibility to develop plans and procedures in order to provide assistance to U.S. citizens and others evacuated from overseas areas.
In order to effectively and efficiently manage these legislative authorities, the Program has been divided into two major activities, Emergencies and Non-Emergencies Repatriation Activities. Operationally, these two Program activities involve different kinds of preparation, resources, and implementation. However, the core Program statute, regulations, policies and administrative procedures for these two Programs are essentially the same. The ongoing routine arrivals of individual repatriates and the repatriation of individuals with mental illness constitute the Program Non-emergency activities. Emergency Activities are characterized by contingency events such as civil unrest, war, threat of war or similar crisis, among other incidents. Depending on the type of event, number of evacuees and resources available, ACF will provide assistance utilizing two scalable mechanisms, emergency repatriations or group repatriations. Emergency repatriations assume the evacuation of 500 or more individuals, while group repatriations assume the evacuation of 50–500 individuals.
The Program provides services through agreements with the States, U.S. Territories, Federal agencies, and Non-governmental agencies. The list of Repatriation Form is as follows:
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Adolescent Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 15, 2015.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS–OS–0990–XXXX–30D for reference.
Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting approval by OMB on a new collection. In FY2015, OAH expects to award a second 5-year cohort of TPP grants. Performance Measure data collection is a requirement of all TPP grant awards and is included in the funding announcements. The measures include dissemination, partners, training, health-care linkages, sustainability, reach, dosage, fidelity, quality, and cost, reported separately by grantee/sub grantee and program model.
Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The data collection will provide OAH with the data needed to comply with accountability and federal performance requirements for the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (Pub. L. 103–62); it will inform stakeholders of progress in meeting the goals of the program and of sustainability efforts; and it will provide OAH with metrics for monitoring TPP grantees and will facilitate grantees' continuous quality improvement in program implementation.
Likely Respondents: 137 TPP grantees and sub-grantees.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202–708–6423. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Danner.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of extension of time.
This notice advises the public that HUD received a request from Clayton Homes, Inc. (Clayton) for an extension of time to fully implement its plan to notify purchasers and correct certain manufactured homes that were installed with TruVent plastic range hood exhaust ducts, an item that Clayton agreed to recall after a HUD audit questioned whether the duct
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202–708–6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401–5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible to notify purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.
HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I), implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or the Department. Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of the deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and the Secretary decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that the Department publish notice of the extension in the
During a HUD audit of the CMH Manufacturing Savannah, TN facility, the use of TruVent plastic expanding vent pipes for the range hood exhaust was questioned as not being in compliance with § 3280.710(e) of HUD's Construction and Safety Standards. On April 6, 2015, after reviewing the matter, Clayton agreed to begin a recall of homes sold with the plastic expanding vent pipes and repair the homes by installing new metal ducts. On May 30, 2015, Clayton requested an extension of time to complete the correction process. In its request, Clayton stated of the 745 homes affected by the recall, it had completed repairs on 428 homes. Clayton also stated that four of the sixteen facilities affected by the recall have completed their repairs and that the others are very close to completing their repairs as well. With its request, Clayton submitted an update on the implementation on its plan of notification and correction.
This notice advises the public that the Department finds that Clayton has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest and, therefore, has granted the requested extension until August 3, 2015, to permit Clayton to continue its good faith efforts to continue repairs on the remaining 317 homes affected by this recall.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments: draft comprehensive conservation plan/environmental assessment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for public review and comment. The CCP/EA, prepared under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the Service proposes to manage the three WMAs for the next 15 years. Draft compatibility determinations for several existing and proposed public uses are also available for review and public comment with the Draft CCP/EA.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by September 9, 2015.
Send your comments, requests for more information, or requests to be added to the mailing list by any of the following methods.
Sandy Osborn, Planning Team Leader,
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires the Service to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
We initiated the CCP/EA for the Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs, in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties in 2009. At that time and throughout the process, we requested, considered, and incorporated public scoping comments in numerous ways. Our public outreach included a
This CCP includes the Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs. The WMAs are part of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Butte Sink WMA was established in 1979 and currently consists of 733 acres of fee title lands and 34 conservation easements on approximately 10,236 acres of private wetlands. The acquisition objective for the Butte Sink WMA has been met. The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA was established in 1985 and currently consists of 85 conservation easements on approximately 5,859 acres of private wetlands; with an approved easement acquisition objective of 8,000 acres within Glenn and Colusa Counties. The North Central Valley WMA was established in 1991 and currently consists of approximately 2,929 acres of Service-owned lands and 28 conservation easements on approximately 14,740 acres of private wetlands, with an approved acquisition objective of 48,750 easement acres and 6,250 Service-owned acres within 11 counties.
The vast majority of wetlands in the Central Valley have been converted to agricultural, industrial, and urban development. The WMAs consist of intensively managed wetlands, and associated uplands and riparian habitats that support large concentrations of migratory birds and many other wetland-dependent species. Collectively, these lands play a significant role in supporting approximately 40 percent of Pacific Flyway wintering waterfowl populations.
The Draft CCP/EA identifies and evaluates three alternatives for managing Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs for the next 15 years. The alternative that appears to best meet the WMAs' purposes is identified as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative is identified based on the analysis presented in the Draft CCP/EA, which may be modified following the completion of the public comment period based on comments received from other agencies, Tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, or individuals.
Under Alternative A (no action alternative), the Service would continue to manage the WMAs as we have in the recent past. Conservation easements would be used as a voluntary, cost-effective tool to protect habitat while maintaining private ownership and management. No additional acquisition would take place in the Butte Sink WMA. Up to 2,141 acres of wetland easements could be acquired from willing landowners to protect wetlands in the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA. Up to 34,043 acres of wetland easements could be acquired from willing landowners in North Central Valley WMA, excluding Sacramento County. Under Alternative A, there would be no agricultural easements in the WMAs. The Service could acquire up to 3,321 additional acres of Service-owned lands from willing landowners in the North Central Valley WMA. When appropriate, the Service would consult with affected counties prior to acquiring lands in fee-title (Service-owned lands).
Under all alternatives, on Llano Seco Unit and other appropriate Service-owned lands, we would provide visitors of all ages and abilities with quality wildlife-dependent recreation, and volunteer opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.
Under Alternative B, wetland easement acquisition goals would remain the same as Alternative A. The only proposed change in wetland easement acquisition would take place in the North Central Valley WMA, where objectives would be modified to include Sacramento County. Under Alternative B, a voluntary agricultural easement program would also be added to the North Central Valley WMA to protect farmland that provides important migratory bird habitat and/or open space buffers to existing protected wetlands. Up to 30,700 acres of agricultural easements could be acquired from willing landowners in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Sutter, and Yolo Counties. As with Alternative A, the Service could acquire up to 3,321 additional acres of Service-owned lands from willing landowners in the North Central Valley WMA.
Under Alternative C (preferred alternative), the wetland easement acquisition goals for the Butte Sink WMA and the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA would remain the same as Alternatives A and B. In Alternative C, the Service is proposing to reduce its existing North Central Valley WMA wetland easement acquisition objective from 34,043 acres to 15,000 acres. The Service is also proposing to limit wetland easement acquisition to Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties. In addition, the Service proposes to add an agricultural easement program to the North Central Valley WMA. Under this scenario, up to 19,043 acres (the difference between the existing North Central Valley WMA wetland easement acreage objective and the Alternative C North Central Valley WMA wetland easement acreage objective) of agricultural easements could be acquired from willing landowners to protect farmland in
The locations, dates, and times of public meetings will be listed in a planning update distributed to the project mailing list and posted on the refuge planning Web site at
Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be obtained by contacting to Sandy Osborn (see
Comments on the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to Sandy Osborn (see
At the end of the review and comment period for this Draft CCP/EA, comments will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in the Final CCP/EA. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received three applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). DCS Capital Investments I, LLC requests a 15-year ITP; Preferred Materials, Inc., doing business as Conrad Yelvington Distributers, requests a 3-year ITP; and Wickham Summerbrook, LLC requests a 5-year ITP. We request public comment on the permit applications and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plans (HCPs), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plans qualify as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 15, 2015.
If you wish to review the applications and HCPs, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731–3121; email:
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
DCS Capital Investments I, LLC is requesting take of approximately .99 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of residential developments, and they seek a 15-year permit. The 86.99-ac project is located on parcel #s 05–22–26–000300000600 and 05–22–26–000400001300 within Section 5, Township 22 South and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 2.0 mitigation credits within the Hatchineha Conservation Bank.
Preferred Materials, Inc. (Conrad Yelvington Distributers) is requesting take of approximately .68 ac of occupied Florida scrub-jay foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of an industrial park, and they seek a 3-year permit. The 15-ac project is located on parcel #04–19–30–16–00–000I within Section 4, Township 19 South and Range 30 East, Volusia County, Florida. The project includes construction of an industrial park and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the Florida scrub-jay through the deposit of funds in the amount of $20,844.72 to the Nature Conservancy's Conservation Fund, for the management and conservation of the Florida scrub-jay based on Service Mitigation Guidelines.
Wickham Summerbrook, LLC is requesting take of approximately 4.64 ac of occupied Florida scrub-jay foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a commercial development, and they seek a 5-year permit. The 8.98-ac project is located on parcel #26–37–31–00–00262.0–0000.00 within Section 31, Township 26 South and Range 37 East, Brevard County, Florida. The project includes construction of a commercial development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the Florida scrub-jay through the preservation of approximately 9.5 acres of high-quality Florida scrub-jay habitat within the Valkaria Site of the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem. The Applicant will preserve and donate six currently unencumbered parcels (Brevard County tax account numbers 2955405, 2955273, 2955322, 2955313, 2955314, and 2954810) to the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program so that these parcels can be managed and maintained as suitable Florida scrub-jay habitat in perpetuity. The Applicant will also provide the EEL Program with a $1,200.00/acre (totaling $11,400.00) management endowment to ensure the continued success of monitoring and maintaining these lands as suitable Florida scrub-jay habitat.
We have determined that the applicants' proposals, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in their HCPs. Therefore, we determined that the ITPs for each of the applicants are “low-effect” projects and qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.
We will evaluate the HCPs and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment on the permit applications, HCPs, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1–16), of two meetings of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee). The Review Committee will meet on November 18–19, 2015, in Norman, OK, and if necessary, via teleconference, on December 14, 2015. All meetings will be open to the public.
The Review Committee will meet November 18–19, 2015, 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (Central), and if necessary, on December 14, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m. (Eastern). For the November meeting, presentation requests and accompanying materials must be received by October 14, 2015; requests for culturally unidentifiable (CUI) disposition must be received by September 9, 2015; requests for findings of fact must be received by August 26, 2015; and requests to convene parties and facilitate the resolution of a dispute must be received by July 22, 2015.
The Review Committee will meet on November 18–19, 2015, at the Riverwind Hotel and Casino, 1544 State Highway 9, Norman, OK 73072. Electronic submissions of materials or requests are to be sent to
The Review Committee was established in Section 8 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3006.
The Review Committee will meet on November 18–19, 2015, at the Riverwind Hotel and Casino, Norman, OK, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Central). This meeting will be open to the public. The agenda for this meeting will include a report from the National NAGPRA Program; the discussion and possible finalization of the Review Committee Report to Congress for 2015; subcommittee reports and discussion; and other topics related to the Review Committee's responsibilities under Section 8 of NAGPRA. In addition, the agenda may include requests to the Review Committee for a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior that an agreed-upon disposition of Native American human remains determined to be culturally unidentifiable proceed; presentations by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, associations, and individuals; public comment; requests to the Review Committee, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(3), for review and findings of fact related to the identity or cultural affiliation of human remains or other cultural items, or the return of such items; and facilitation of the resolution of disputes among parties convened by the Review Committee pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(4). Presentation to the Review Committee by telephone may be requested but is not guaranteed. The agenda and materials for this meeting will be posted on or before October 28, 2015, at
The Review Committee is soliciting presentations from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, and Federal agencies on the following two topics: (1) The progress made, and any barriers encountered, in implementing NAGPRA and (2) the outcomes of disputes reviewed by the Review Committee pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(4). The Review Committee also will consider other presentations from Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, associations, and individuals. A presentation request must, at minimum, include an abstract of the presentation and contact information for the presenter(s). Presentation requests and materials must be received by October 14, 2015. Written comments will be accepted from any party and provided to the Review Committee. Written comments received by October 29, 2015, will be provided to the Review Committee before the meeting. Written comments received later than October 29, 2015, will be provided to the Review Committee at the meeting.
The Review Committee will consider requests for a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior that an agreed-upon disposition of Native American human remains determined to be CUI proceed. A CUI disposition request must include the appropriate, completed form posted on the National NAGPRA Program Web site and, as applicable, the ancillary materials noted on the form. To access and download the appropriate form—either the form for CUI with a “tribal land” or “aboriginal land” provenience or the form for CUI without a “tribal land” or “aboriginal land” provenience—go to
The Review Committee will consider requests, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(3), for review and findings of fact related to the identity or cultural affiliation of human remains or other cultural items, or the return of such items, where consensus among affected parties is unclear or uncertain. A request for findings of fact must be accompanied by a statement of the fact(s) at issue and supporting materials, including those exchanged by the parties to consultation concerning the Native American human remains and/or other cultural items. To access procedures for presenting findings of fact, go to
The Review Committee will consider requests, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(4), to convene parties and facilitate the resolution of a dispute, where consensus clearly has not been reached among affected parties regarding the identity or cultural affiliation of human remains or other cultural items, or the return of such items. A request to convene parties and facilitate the resolution of a dispute must be accompanied by a statement of the decision of the museum or Federal agency subject to the dispute resolution request, a statement of the issue, and the materials exchanged by the parties concerning the Native American human remains and/or other cultural items. To access procedures for presenting disputes, go to
Submissions and requests should be sent to
The Review Committee will meet via teleconference on December 14, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m. (Eastern), for the sole purpose of finalizing the Review Committee Report to Congress, should the report not be finalized by November 19. This meeting will be open to the public. Those who desire to attend the meeting should register at
Information about NAGPRA, the Review Committee, and Review Committee meetings is available on the National NAGPRA Program Web site at
Review Committee members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Review Committee is responsible for monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process; reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items; facilitating the resolution of disputes; compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or control of each Federal agency and museum, and recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition of such human remains; consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters affecting such tribes or organizations lying within the scope of work of the Review Committee; consulting with the Secretary of the Interior on the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items. The Review Committee's work is carried out during the course of meetings that are open to the public.
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, you should be aware that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources intend to prepare a partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/SDEIS) on the Draft Bay Delta
Ms. Michelle Banonis, Bureau of Reclamation, (916) 930–5676.
On January 24, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on the BDCP (73 FR 4178). The NOI was re-issued on April 15, 2008, to include the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as a co-lead Federal agency, update the status of the planning process, and provide updated information related to scoping meetings (73 FR 20326). The April 15, 2008, NOI identified scoping meeting locations and stated that written comments would be accepted until May 30, 2008. Additional information was later developed to describe the proposed BDCP, and subsequent scoping activities were initiated on February 13, 2009, with the publication of a revised NOI (74 FR 7257). The NOI identified scoping meeting locations and stated that written comments would be accepted until May 14, 2009.
In 2008, ten public scoping meetings were held throughout California. In spring 2009, a summary update was produced and distributed about the development of the Plan to interested members of the public, including details of individual elements of the plan (referred to in the Plan as “conservation measures”) that were being considered as part of the conservation strategy. Ten additional public scoping meetings were then held throughout California, seeking input about the scope of covered activities and potential alternatives to the proposed action.
In December 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency disseminated to the public a summary of the BDCP, its status, and a list of outstanding issues. In 2011 and 2012, public meetings continued in Sacramento, California, to update stakeholders and the public on elements of the draft BDCP and EIR/EIS that were being developed.
On December 13, 2013, the Draft BDCP and associated Draft EIR/EIS were released to the public and a 120-day public comment period was opened through notification in the
As a result of considering comments on the Draft BDCP, Draft EIR/EIS, and Draft Implementing Agreement, Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources have proposed three additional conveyance alternatives for analysis in the RDEIR/SDEIR. Each of these alternatives contains fewer Conservation Measures than the conveyance alternatives circulated in the Draft EIS/EIR. Specifically, the new alternatives no longer contain the following Conservation Measures: CM–2 Yolo Bypass Fisheries Enhancement; CM–5 Seasonally Inundated Floodplain Restoration; CM–8 Grassland Natural Community Restoration; CM–13 Invasive Aquatic Vegetation Control; CM–14 Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel Dissolved Oxygen Levels; CM–17 Illegal Harvest Reduction; CM–18 Conservation Hatcheries; CM–19 Urban Stormwater Treatment; CM–20 Recreational Users Invasive Species Program; and CM–21 Non-project Diversions. The new alternatives contain modified versions of the following Conservation Measures: CM–3 Natural Communities Protection and Restoration; CM–4 Tidal Natural Communities Restoration; CM–6 Channel Margin Enhancement; CM–7 Riparian Natural Community Restoration; CM–9 Vernal Pool and Alkali Seasonal Wetland Complex Restoration; CM–10 Nontidal Marsh Restoration; CM–11 Natural Communities Enhancement and Management; CM–12 Methylmercury Management; CM–15 Localized Reduction of Predatory Fishes; and CM–16 Non-Physical Fish Barriers. The new alternatives are not structured as a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan but are structured to achieve compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act through consultation under Section 7 and the California Endangered Species Act through the incidental take permit process under Section 2081(b) of the California Fish & Game Code.
DWR has identified one of the new alternatives, Alternative 4A, as their proposed project. Alternative 4A will consist of a water conveyance facility with three intakes, habitat restoration measures necessary to minimize or avoid project effects, and the previously described Conservation Measures. Alternative 4A is proposed by DWR to make physical and operational improvements to the State Water Project system in the Delta necessary to restore and protect ecosystem health, water supplies of the SWP and Central Valley Project south-of-Delta, and water quality within a stable regulatory framework, consistent with statutory and contractual obligations.
The RDEIR/SDEIS will also analyze the impacts for two additional alternatives: Alternative 2D, which will consist of a water conveyance facility with five intakes, and Alternative 5A, which will consist of a water conveyance facility with one intake. Both of these alternatives will contain the habitat restoration measures necessary to minimize or avoid project effects, and the previously described Conservation Measures listed above. In addition, the RDEIR/SDEIR will describe and analyze project modifications and refinement of the resource area analyses, alternatives, and actions. Reclamation will be the Federal lead agency and NMFS, USFWS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by virtue of their regulatory review requirements, will be cooperating agencies for the RDEIR/SDEIR. All other entities identified as Cooperating Agencies through prior agreements will retain their status for the RDEIR/SDEIR.
If one of these additional alternatives is selected as the preferred alternative, it would be analyzed through the interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act through Section 2081(b) of the California Fish & Game Code. Further, the RDEIR/SDEIS will evaluate alternatives to support a determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The RDEIR/SDEIS is being prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act. Based on project revisions and in consideration of comments received on
For further background information, see the December 13, 2013
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 135) terminating the above-captioned investigation based on complainant's lack of standing with respect to the remaining asserted patents. On review, the Commission affirms with modified reasoning and terminates the investigation in its entirety.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2392. 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 October 25, 2013, based on a Complaint filed by Optical Devices, LLC of Peterborough, New Hampshire (“Optical Devices”), as supplemented. 78 FR 64009 (Oct. 25, 2013). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 7,196,979; 8,416,651 (collectively, “the Kadlec Patents”); RE40,927; RE42,913; and RE43,681 (collectively “the Wild Patents”). The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named numerous respondents including Lenovo Group Ltd. of Quarry Bay, Hong Kong and Lenovo (United States) Inc., of Morrisville, North Carolina; LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and MediaTek, Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan and MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party to the investigation.
The Commission later terminated the investigation as to the application of numerous claims of the asserted patents to various named respondents.
On December 4, 2014, the Commission affirmed, with modified reasoning, the ALJ's determination to terminate the investigation with respect to the Wild Patents based on Optical Devices' lack of standing to assert the Wild Patents. On the same day, the Commission vacated the ALJ's finding that Optical Devices lacked standing with respect to the Kadlec Patents, and remanded the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings.
After re-opening discovery and receiving additional briefing from the parties, the ALJ issued the subject ID on April 27, 2015, finding that Optical Devices does not have standing to assert the Kadlec Patents in this investigation.
On May 7, 2015, Optical Devices filed a petition for review of the subject ID, and Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of the subject ID. On May 14, 2015, the parties filed their respective responses to the petitions.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the record evidence, the Commission has determined to review the subject ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review a finding related to an agreement discussed on pages 22–25 of the ID. On review, the Commission affirms the ID's finding with modified reasoning. The Commission has also determined to correct certain statements made in the subject ID. A Commission opinion will be issued shortly. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
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.
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
1. Request to renew with no changes two (2) currently approved information collections due to expire 8/31/2015 (OMB Control Numbers 3320–0005 and 3320–0006).
2. Request to establish one new information collection under a new OMB Control Number using seven (7) questions relating to environmental collaboration and conflict resolution (ECCR) services drawn from five (5) currently approved information collections due to expire on 6/30/2015 (OMB Control Numbers 3320–0004 and 3320–0010) and 8/31/2015 (OMB Control Numbers 3320–0003, 3320–0007, and 3320–0009). If the new collection request is approved, the five existing information collections will be discontinued together with any question not brought into the new information collection. The intent of this request is to reduce the burden and economic impact on respondents. The new information collection is proposed to a common form (see the “Supplementary Information” section).
1. Request to renew with minor, non-substantive changes to the format, one currently approved information collection due to expire 9/15/15 (OMB Control Number 3320–0008).
These requests are consolidated under one announcement to provide a more coherent picture of the U.S. Institute's information collection activities. The proposed collections are necessary to measure, improve, and report on U.S. Institute performance and delivery of its services. The collections are not expected to have a significant economic impact on respondents or to affect a substantial number of small entities.
Before submitting the ICRs to OMB for review and approval, the U.S. Institute requests comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described at the beginning of the section labeled
The information collections can be downloaded from the Institute's Web site [
Paper copies can be obtained from Stephanie Zimmt-Mack, General Counsel, The Morris K. Udall & Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701, Fax: 520–901–8577 (confidential direct line), Phone: 520–901–8576, Email:
Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing this
To comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103–62), the Udall Foundation produces an Annual Performance Report, linked directly to the goals and objectives outlined in its five-year Strategic Plan (
Specifically, this Federal Notice covers: (1) Evaluation of roster search services, training services and environmental collaboration and conflict resolution (ECCR) services, and application to the Roster of ECR Professionals. After delivery of services, such as a training, a roster search or utilization of U.S. Institute ECCR services, participants are asked to complete questionnaires evaluating the usefulness and effectiveness of those services. Responses are voluntary.
The U.S. Institute accomplishes much of its work by contracting with experienced environmental conflict resolution (ECR) professionals. In support of this work, and in support of its statutory mission to further the use of environmental conflict resolution, the U.S. Institute maintains the National Roster of Environmental Conflict Resolution Professionals (Roster). The Roster is publicly available and searchable for any party in need of environmental conflict resolution services. Submission of an application for membership in the Roster is entirely voluntary. Applicants provide qualifications and experience through an on-line application and the Institute determines eligibility for listing in the Roster against a published set of criteria. If approved for membership, the ECR professional completes a searchable Roster profile. This notice covers the collection of information through the application for membership in the Roster.
As previously stated, the U.S. Institute desires to make its proposed new ECCR Services information collection a common form. A “common form” is an information collection that can be used by two or more agencies, or government-wide, for the same purposes. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Common Forms Module allows a “host” agency to obtain OMB approval of an information collection for use by one or more “using” agencies. After OMB grants approval, any prospective using agency that seeks to collect identical information for the same purpose can obtain approval to use the “common form” by providing its agency-specific information to OMB (
The U.S. Institute invites comments that can be used to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the U.S. Institute, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
3. Minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents,
Section A. Information on Individual ICRs:
1. Roster Search Services:
2. Training Services:
3. Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution Services (new information collection):
4. Roster of ECR Professionals Membership application:
20 U.S.C. 5601–5609.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.
The 10 a.m. meeting will be open, and the 11:30 a.m. meeting will be closed.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304.
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the CANCELLATION of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business. The original notification appeared in the
Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:00–6:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be rescheduled. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above-captioned Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility license amendment proceeding is hereby reconstituted by
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-filing rule.
Rockville, Maryland.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5020 (Criteria for Underlying Securities) to permit the listing of options overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on equities exchanges for series of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement is not required. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5020 (Criteria for Underlying Securities) to permit the listing of options overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on equities exchanges for series of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“comprehensive surveillance agreement” or “CSSA”) is not required.
The Exchange allows for the listing and trading of options on ETFs. Rule 5020(h)(2)(A)–(C) provide the listings standards for options on ETFs with non-U.S. component securities, such as ETFs based on international or global indexes. Rule 5020(h)(2)(A) requires that any non-U.S. component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the aggregate represent more than 50% of the weight of the index or portfolio.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b–4(e)
In addition, the Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of ETFs based on international indexes—those based on non-U.S. component stocks—as well as global indexes—those based on non-U.S. and U.S. component stocks.
In approving ETFs for equities exchange trading, the Commission thoroughly considered the structure of the ETFs, their usefulness to investors and to the markets, and SRO rules that govern their trading. The Exchange believes that allowing the listing of options overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to the generic listing standards on equities exchanges for ETFs based on international and global indexes and applying Rule 19b–4(e)
Options on ETFs listed pursuant to these generic standards for international and global indexes would be traded, in all other respects, under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to options on ETFs and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance program for options on ETFs.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, the Exchange may list and trade options on an ETF without a CSSA provided that the ETF is listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. The Exchange believes that these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio.
The Exchange believes that this proposed listing standard for options on ETFs is reasonable for international and global indexes, and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing requirements,
The Exchange believes that ETFs based on international and global indexes that have been listed pursuant to the generic standards are sufficiently broad-based enough as to make options overlying such ETFs not susceptible instruments for manipulation. The Exchange believes that the threat of manipulation is sufficiently mitigated for underlying ETFs that have been listed on equities exchanges pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required and for the overlying options, that the Exchange does not see the need for CSSA to be in place before listing and trading options on such ETFs. The Exchange notes that its proposal does not replace the need for a CSSA as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged in the proposed rule and will continue to apply to options on ETFs that are not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. Instead, the proposed rule adds an additional listing mechanism for certain qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
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 this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to recent rule changes filed by the MIAX Options Exchange (“MIAX”), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”) and International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”).
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, 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 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b–1 under the Act.
Ares Dynamic Credit Allocation Fund, Inc. (“ARDC”), Ares Multi-Strategy Credit Fund, Inc. (“ARMF”), and Ares Capital Management II LLC (“ACM”) (together, the “Applicants”).
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of any outstanding preferred stock that such investment companies may issue.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2015 and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, 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.
Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants, Daniel J. Hall, Esq., Ares Dynamic Credit Allocation Fund, Inc., Ares Capital Management II LLC, 2000 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6853, or James M. Curtis, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6712 (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 for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. ARDC and ARMF each is registered as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company organized as a Maryland corporation.
2. ACM, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) as an investment adviser. ACM is the investment adviser to the Funds. Any sub-adviser to a Fund will be registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act or not subject to registration.
3. Applicants state that prior to a Fund's implementing a distribution policy (“Distribution Policy”) in reliance on the order, the board of directors (the “Board”) of each Fund, including a majority of the directors who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the “Independent Directors”), will request, and the Adviser will provide, such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether the Board should adopt a proposed Distribution Policy. In particular, the Board and the Independent Directors will review information regarding: (i) The purpose and terms of the Distribution Policy; (ii) the likely effects of the policy on the Fund's long-term total return (in relation to market price and its net asset value per share of common stock (“NAV”)); (iii) the expected relationship between the Fund's distribution rate on its common stock under the policy and the Fund's total return (in relation to NAV); (iv) whether the rate of distribution would exceed such Fund's expected total return in relation to its NAV; and (v) any foreseeable material effects of the policy on the Fund's long-term total return (in relation to market price and NAV). The Independent Directors also will consider what conflicts of interest the Adviser and the affiliated persons of the Adviser and the Fund might have with respect to the adoption or implementation of the Distribution Policy. Applicants state that, only after considering such information will the Board, including the Independent Directors, of each Fund approve a Distribution Policy and in connection with such approval will determine that the Distribution Policy is consistent with a Fund's investment objectives and in the best interests of the holders of the Fund's common stock.
4. Applicants state that the purpose of a Distribution Policy, generally, would be to permit a Fund to distribute over the course of each year, through periodic distributions in relatively equal amounts (plus any required special distributions) an amount closely approximating the total taxable income of the Fund during the year and, if
5. Applicants state that prior to the implementation of a Distribution Policy for any Fund in reliance on the order, the Board of such Fund will have adopted policies and procedures under rule 38a–1 under the Act that: (i) Are reasonably designed to ensure that all notices required to be sent to the Fund's stockholders pursuant to section 19(a) of the Act, rule 19a–1 thereunder and condition 4 below (each a “19(a) Notice”) include the disclosure required by rule 19a–1 under the Act and by condition 2(a) below, and that all other written communications by the Fund or its agents regarding distributions under the Distribution Policy include the disclosure required by condition 3(a) below; and (ii) require the Fund to keep records that demonstrate its compliance with all of the conditions of the order and that are necessary for such Fund to form the basis for, or demonstrate the calculation of, the amounts disclosed in its 19(a) Notices.
1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any registered investment company to make long-term capital gains distributions more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b–1 limits the number of capital gains dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code (“distributions”), that a fund may make with respect to any one taxable year to one, plus a supplemental distribution made pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section 4982 of the Code.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that such 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.
3. Applicants state that one of the concerns leading to the enactment of section 19(b) and adoption of rule 19b–1 was that stockholders might be unable to distinguish between frequent distributions of capital gains and dividends from investment income. Applicants state, however, that rule 19a–1 effectively addresses this concern by requiring that distributions (or the confirmation of the reinvestment thereof) estimated to be sourced in part from capital gains or capital be accompanied by a separate statement showing the sources of the distribution (
4. Applicants further state that each Fund will make the additional disclosures required by the conditions set forth below, and each Fund will adopt compliance policies and procedures in accordance with rule 38a–1 under the Act to ensure that all required 19(a) Notices and disclosures are sent to stockholders. Applicants state that the information required by section 19(a), rule 19a–1, the Distribution Policy, the policies and procedures under rule 38a–1 noted above, and the conditions listed below will help ensure that each Fund's stockholders are provided sufficient information to understand that their periodic distributions are not tied to a Fund's net investment income (which for this purpose is the Fund's taxable income other than from capital gains) and realized capital gains to date, and may not represent yield or investment return. Accordingly, applicants assert that continuing to subject the Funds to section 19(b) and rule 19b–1 would afford stockholders no extra protection.
5. Applicants note that section 19(b) and rule 19b–1 also were intended to prevent certain improper sales practices, including, in particular, the practice of urging an investor to purchase shares of a fund on the basis of an upcoming capital gains dividend (“selling the dividend”), where the dividend would result in an immediate corresponding reduction in NAV and would be in effect a taxable return of the investor's capital. Applicants submit that the “selling the dividend” concern should not apply to a closed-end investment company, such as each Fund, which do not continuously distribute shares. According to applicants, if the underlying concern extends to secondary market purchases of shares of closed-end funds that are subject to a large upcoming capital gains dividend, adoption of a periodic distribution plan actually helps minimize the concern by avoiding, through periodic distributions, any buildup of large end-of-the-year distributions.
6. Applicants also note that the common stock of a closed-end fund often trades in the marketplace at a discount to its NAV. Applicants believe that this discount may be reduced if a Fund is permitted to pay relatively frequent dividends on its common stock at a consistent rate, whether or not those dividends contain an element of long-term capital gains.
7. Applicants assert that the application of rule 19b–1 to a Distribution Policy actually could have an inappropriate influence on portfolio management decisions. Applicants state that, in the absence of an exemption from rule 19b–1, the adoption of a periodic distribution plan imposes pressure on management (i) not to realize any net long-term capital gains until the point in the year that the fund can pay all of its remaining distributions in accordance with rule 19b–1, and (ii) not to realize any long-term capital gains during any particular year in excess of the amount of the aggregate pay-out for the year (since as a practical matter excess gains must be distributed and accordingly would not be available to satisfy pay-out requirements in following years), notwithstanding that purely investment considerations might favor realization of long-term gains at different times or in different amounts. Applicants assert that by limiting the number of long-term capital gain dividends that a Fund may make with respect to any one year, rule 19b–1 may prevent the normal and efficient operation of a periodic distribution plan whenever that Fund's realized net long-
8. Applicants also assert that rule 19b–1 may force fixed regular periodic distributions under a periodic distribution plan to be funded with returns of capital
9. Applicants state that Revenue Ruling 89–81 under the Code requires that a fund that seeks to qualify as a regulated investment company under the Code and that has both common stock and preferred stock outstanding designate the types of income,
10. Applicants assert that the potential abuses addressed by section 19(b) and rule 19b–1 do not arise with respect to preferred stock issued by a closed-end fund. Applicants assert that such distributions are either fixed or determined in periodic auctions by reference to short-term interest rates rather than by reference to performance of the issuer, and Revenue Ruling 89–81 determines the proportion of such distributions that are comprised of long-term capital gains.
11. Applicants also submit that the “selling the dividend” concern is not applicable to preferred stock, which entitles a holder to no more than a specified periodic dividend at a fixed rate or the rate determined by the market, and, like a debt security, is priced based upon its liquidation preference, dividend rate, credit quality, and frequency of payment. Applicants state that investors buy preferred stock for the purpose of receiving payments at the frequency bargained for, and any application of rule 19b–1 to preferred stock would be contrary to the expectation of investors.
12. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from the provisions of section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b–1 thereunder to permit each Fund to distribute periodic capital gain dividends (as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any preferred stock issued by the Fund.
Applicants agree that, with respect to each Fund seeking to rely on the order, the order will be subject to the following conditions:
The Fund's chief compliance officer will: (a) Report to the Fund's Board, no less frequently than once every three months or at the next regularly scheduled quarterly Board meeting, whether (i) the Fund and its Adviser have complied with the conditions of the order, and (ii) a material compliance matter (as defined in rule 38a–1(e)(2) under the Act) has occurred with respect to such conditions; and (b) review the adequacy of the policies and procedures adopted by the Board no less frequently than annually.
(a) Each 19(a) Notice disseminated to the holders of the Fund's common stock, in addition to the information required by section19(a) and rule 19a–1:
(i) Will provide, in a tabular or graphical format:
(1) the amount of the distribution, on a per share of common stock basis, together with the amounts of such distribution amount, on a per share of common stock basis and as a percentage of such distribution amount, from estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital source;
(2) the fiscal year-to-date cumulative amount of distributions, on a per share of common stock basis, together with the amounts of such cumulative amount, on a per share of common stock basis and as a percentage of such cumulative amount of distributions, from estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital source;
(3) the average annual total return in relation to the change in NAV for the 5-year period (or, if the Fund's history of operations is less than five years, the time period commencing immediately following the Fund's first public offering) ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most recent distribution record date compared to the current fiscal period's annualized distribution rate expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date; and
(4) the cumulative total return in relation to the change in NAV from the last completed fiscal year to the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date compared to the fiscal year-to-date cumulative distribution rate expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent distribution record date. Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large and as prominent as the estimate of the sources of the current distribution; and
(ii) Will include the following disclosure:
(1) “You should not draw any conclusions about the Fund's investment performance from the amount of this distribution or from the terms of the Fund's Distribution Policy”;
(2) The Fund estimates that it has distributed more than its income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of your distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the money that you invested in the Fund is paid back to you. A return of capital distribution does not necessarily reflect the Fund's investment performance and should not be confused with `yield' or `income'
(3) “The amounts and sources of distributions reported in this 19(a) Notice are only estimates and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon the Fund's investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. The Fund will send you a Form 1099–DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes.”
(b) On the inside front cover of each report to stockholders under rule 30e-1 under the Act, the Fund will:
(i) describe the terms of the Distribution Policy (including the fixed amount or fixed percentage of the distributions and the frequency of the distributions);
(ii) include the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii)(1) above;
(iii) state, if applicable, that the Distribution Policy provides that the Board may amend or terminate the Distribution Policy at any time without prior notice to Fund stockholders; and
(iv) describe any reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might cause the Fund to terminate the Distribution Policy and any reasonably foreseeable consequences of such termination.
(c) Each report provided to stockholders under rule 30e–1 under the Act and each prospectus filed with the Commission on Form N–2 under the Act, will provide the Fund's total return in relation to changes in NAV in the financial highlights table and in any discussion about the Fund's total return.
(a) The Fund will include the information contained in the relevant 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, in any written communication (other than a communication on Form 1099) about the Distribution Policy or distributions under the Distribution Policy by the Fund, or agents that the Fund has authorized to make such communication on the Fund's behalf, to any Fund stockholder, prospective stockholder or third-party information provider;
(b) The Fund will issue, contemporaneously with the issuance of any 19(a) Notice, a press release containing the information in the 19(a) Notice and will file with the Commission the information contained in such 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, as an exhibit to its next filed Form N–CSR; and
(c) The Fund will post prominently a statement on its (or the Adviser's) Web site containing the information in each 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition 2(a)(ii) above, and will maintain such information on such Web site for at least 24 months.
If a broker, dealer, bank or other person (“financial intermediary”) holds common stock issued by the Fund in nominee name, or otherwise, on behalf of a beneficial owner, the Fund: (a) Will request that the financial intermediary, or its agent, forward the 19(a) Notice to all beneficial owners of the Fund's stock held through such financial intermediary; (b) will provide, in a timely manner, to the financial intermediary, or its agent, enough copies of the 19(a) Notice assembled in the form and at the place that the financial intermediary, or its agent, reasonably requests to facilitate the financial intermediary's sending of the 19(a) Notice to each beneficial owner of the Fund's stock; and (c) upon the request of any financial intermediary, or its agent, that receives copies of the 19(a) Notice, will pay the financial intermediary, or its agent, the reasonable expenses of sending the 19(a) Notice to such beneficial owners.
If:
(a) The Fund's common stock has traded on the stock exchange that they primarily trade on at the time in question at an average premium to NAV equal to or greater than 10%, as determined on the basis of the average of the discount or premium to NAV of the Fund's shares of common stock as of the close of each trading day over a 12-week rolling period (each such 12-week rolling period ending on the last trading day of each week); and
(b) The Fund's annualized distribution rate for such 12-week rolling period, expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the ending date of such 12-week rolling period, is greater than the Fund's average annual total return in relation to the change in NAV over the 2-year period ending on the last day of such 12-week rolling period; then:
(i) At the earlier of the next regularly scheduled meeting or within four months of the last day of such 12-week rolling period, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Directors:
(1) Will request and evaluate, and the Fund's Adviser will furnish, such information as may be reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether the Distribution Policy should be continued or continued after amendment;
(2) will determine whether continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy is consistent with the Fund's investment objective(s) and policies and is in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders, after considering the information in condition 5(b)(i)(1) above; including, without limitation:
(A) Whether the Distribution Policy is accomplishing its purpose(s);
(B) the reasonably foreseeable material effects of the Distribution Policy on the Fund's long-term total return in relation to the market price and NAV of the Fund's common stock; and
(C) the Fund's current distribution rate, as described in condition 5(b) above, compared with the Fund's average annual taxable income or total return over the 2-year period, as described in condition 5(b), or such longer period as the Board deems appropriate; and
(3) based upon that determination, will approve or disapprove the continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy; and
(ii) The Board will record the information considered by it, including its consideration of the factors listed in condition 5(b)(i)(2) above, and the basis for its approval or disapproval of the continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Distribution Policy in its meeting minutes, which must be made and preserved for a period of not less than six years from the date of such meeting, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
The Fund will not make a public offering of the Fund's common stock other than:
(a) A rights offering below NAV to holders of the Fund's common stock;
(b) an offering in connection with a dividend reinvestment plan, merger, consolidation, acquisition, spin-off or reorganization of the Fund; or
(c) an offering other than an offering described in conditions 6(a) and 6(b)
(i) The Fund's annualized distribution rate for the six months ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most recent distribution record date,
(ii) the transmittal letter accompanying any registration statement filed with the Commission in connection with such offering discloses that the Fund has received an order under section 19(b) to permit it to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to its shares of common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or determined in accordance with the terms of any outstanding shares of preferred stock as such Fund may issue.
The requested order will expire on the effective date of any amendment to rule 19b–1 that provides relief permitting certain closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times each year.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the “Fee Schedule”) to modify the credits for Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on June 1, 2015. The text of 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 the Fee Schedule to modify the credits applicable to MPL Orders.
Currently, MPL Orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange receive a credit of $0.0015 per share for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities under Tier 1, Tier 2 and Basic Rates in the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange proposes to modify the credits under Tier 1, Tier 2 and Basic Rates for MPL Orders that provide liquidity and establish different credits based on the Average Daily Volume (“ADV”) of provided liquidity in MPL Orders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities combined (“MPL Adding ADV”). The proposed changes would apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers that are eligible for Tier 1 or Tier 2 fees and credits, and to the Basic Rates. The proposed changes would apply to securities with a per share price of $1.00 or above.
For ETP Holders and Market Makers that have MPL Adding ADV during the billing month of at least 3 million shares, the credit per share would be $0.0015 for Tape A Securities, $0.0020 for Tape B Securities and $0.0025 for Tape C Securities (“MPL Adding ADV Category 1”).
For ETP Holders and Market Makers with MPL Adding ADV during the
For ETP Holders and Market Makers with MPL Adding ADV during the billing month of less than 1.5 million shares, the credit per share would be $0.0010 for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities (“MPL Adding ADV Category 3”).
The current $0.0030 fee for MPL Orders in Tape A, B and C securities that remove liquidity from the Exchange would not change as a result of this proposal. In addition, MPL Orders removing liquidity from the Exchange that are designated as Retail Orders are not currently subject to a fee, which the Exchange is not proposing to change.
The Exchange also proposes to add the defined term, “MPL” in place of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity” throughout the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the credits for MPL Orders is reasonable because it would align the level of the credits to the level of volume provided.
The Exchange believes that the higher credits in MPL Adding ADV Category 1 for Tape B and Tape C securities, of $0.0020 and $0.0025, respectively, is reasonable because the higher credits would incentivize ETP Holders to submit the additional liquidity required for MPL Adding ADV Category 1 through MPL Orders in Tape B and Tape C Securities. The Exchange believes that for MPL Adding ADV Category 1, the credit for Tape A securities of $0.0015 is reasonable because it is unchanged from the current credit.
Similarly, the credit of $0.0015 in MPL Adding ADV Category 2, which is the same as the current per share credit for MPL Orders, is reasonable because it would apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers that provide a lower MPL Adding ADV, of more than 1.5 million shares but less than 3 million shares, than MPL Adding ADV Category 1, but higher [sic] than the MPL Adding ADV required for the higher credits in MPL Adding ADV Category 1 [sic] for Tape B and Tape C Securities. The lowest credit, of $0.0010 per share, in MPL Adding ADV Category 3, is reasonable because it would apply equally to the ETP Holders and Market Makers that provide the lowest MPL Adding ADV of less than 1.5 million shares.
MPL Orders allow for additional opportunities for passive interaction with trading interest on the Exchange and are designed to offer potential price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed credits would be available to all ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for and would apply equally to MPL Orders from all ETP Holders and Market Makers.
Finally, the Exchange notes that certain other exchanges also structure pricing based on midpoint pricing, including with respect to applicable volume thresholds that must be satisfied in order to qualify for such pricing, and that the pricing levels proposed by the Exchange are competitive with those exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the changes to replace the term, “Mid-Point Passive Liquidity” with the defined term, “MPL” throughout the fee schedule is reasonable because it will make the Fee Schedule clearer and easier to understand.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. 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 change reflects this competitive environment. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Also, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. In this regard, the Exchange notes that certain aspects of the proposed change are similar to, and competitive with, pricing structures and applicable fees and credits applicable on another exchange.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee or credit levels at a particular venue to be unattractive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. The credits proposed herein are based on objective standards that are applicable to all ETP Holders and reflect the need for the Exchange to offer significant financial incentives to attract order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment and is therefore consistent with the Act.
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.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 10, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, which seeks to list and trade Shares of the Funds pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5745 governing the listing
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to increase certain complex order fees in Select Symbols, and to introduce tiered fees for certain Market Maker complex orders based on affiliated Priority Customer complex order volume. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase certain complex order fees in Select Symbols,
Professional Customer
For purposes of determining Priority Customer Complex ADV, any day that the complex order book is not open for the entire trading day may be excluded from such calculation; provided that the Exchange will only remove the day for members that would have a lower ADV with the day included.
Preferenced Market Makers will continue to be eligible for a $0.02 per contract discount as described in footnote 6 above.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable and equitable as the proposed fees are set at levels that the Exchange believes will continue to be attractive to market participants that trade on ISE, and offset rebates provided to Priority Customer complex orders, which were recently
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
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 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 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.
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 ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to increase the maker fee charged to Market Maker and Non-ISE Market Maker orders in Select Symbols when trading against Priority Customer complex orders that leg in from the complex order book. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the maker fee charged to Market Maker
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable and equitable as it aligns the fees associated with trading against legged-in Priority Customer orders with the rebates paid out by ISE. As explained above, the Exchange offers significant rebates to Priority Customer complex orders. This, combined with the low maker fees charged to regular orders, results a negative rate per contract when Priority Customer complex orders leg in to the regular order book. To reduce these negative economics, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to increase the fees charged to Market Maker and Non-ISE Market Maker orders that trade against Priority Customer complex orders that leg in from the complex order book. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the proposed maker fees are equivalent to the rebate provided to Priority Customer complex orders that qualify for the lowest tier of rebate, and will therefore help offset those rebates. The proposed fees are also within the range of fees charged by other options exchanges, including, for example, BOX Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”), which charges a fee of $0.51 per contract for Market Maker orders in penny pilot classes when trading against a Public Customer. The Exchange notes that it is only proposing to increase the applicable maker fees for Market Maker and Non-ISE Market Maker orders, and not for Firm Proprietary
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
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 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 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Nuveen ETF Trust (the “Trust”), Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (“Nuveen”), and Nuveen Securities, LLC (“Nuveen Securities”).
Applicants request an order that permits: (a) Actively-managed series of the Trust to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Creation Units for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on 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
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants: 333 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6817 or Daniele Marchesani, 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 for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust will be registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act and is organized as a Massachusetts business trust. The Trust will offer Funds (as defined below), each of which will have distinct investment strategies and will attempt to achieve its investment objective by utilizing an active management strategy.
2. Nuveen, a Delaware limited liability company, is, and any other Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). An Adviser will be investment adviser to each Fund and may enter into subadvisory agreements with one or more affiliated or unaffiliated investment sub-advisers to a Fund (each, a “Sub-Adviser”). Any Sub-Adviser will be registered or not subject to registration under the Advisers Act. Nuveen Securities, a Delaware limited liability company, is, and any other Distributor will be, registered as a broker-dealer (“Broker”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
3. Applicants request that the order apply to future series of the Trust, including the Initial Fund, or of any other open-end investment company that may be created in the future that, in each case, (a) is an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”), (b) is advised by Nuveen or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Nuveen (each such entity or any successor entity thereto, an “Adviser”)
4. The Funds may invest in equity securities or fixed income securities traded in the U.S. or non-U.S. markets. Funds that invest in equity securities or fixed income securities traded in the U.S. or non-U.S. markets are “Global Funds.” Funds that invest solely in foreign equity securities or foreign fixed income securities are “Foreign Funds.” The Funds may also invest in “Depositary Receipts”
5. Applicants also request that any exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) apply to: (i) Any Fund; (ii) any Acquiring Fund (as defined below); and (iii) any Brokers selling Shares of a Fund to an Acquiring Fund or any principal underwriter of a Fund. A management investment company or unit investment trust registered under the Act that is not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act and that acquires Shares of a Fund in excess of the limits of Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act is referred to as an “Acquiring Management Company” or an “Acquiring Trust,” respectively, and the Acquiring Management Companies and Acquiring Trusts are referred to collectively as “Acquiring Funds.”
6. A Creation Unit will consist of at least 25,000 Shares and applicants expect that the trading price of a Share will range from $20 to $100. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through an “Authorized Participant,” which is either (a) a Broker or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”, and such process the “NSCC Process”), or (b) a participant in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC,” such participant “DTC Participant” and such process the “DTC Process”), which, in either case, has executed an agreement with the Distributor with respect to the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
7. In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
8. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, a Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash; (d) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund requires all Authorized Participants purchasing or redeeming Shares on that day to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are not eligible for transfer through either the NSCC Process or DTC Process; or (ii) in the case of Global Funds and Foreign Funds, such instruments are not eligible for trading due to local trading restrictions, local restrictions on securities transfers or other similar circumstances; or (e) if a Fund permits an Authorized Participant to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are, in the case of the purchase of a Creation Unit, not available in sufficient quantity; (ii) such instruments are not eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor on whose behalf the Authorized Participant is acting; or (iii) a holder of Shares of a Global Fund or Foreign Fund would be subject to unfavorable income tax treatment if the holder receives redemption proceeds in kind.
9. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (a “Listing Market”), on which Shares are listed and traded, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Listing Market will disseminate, every 15 seconds throughout the regular trading hours, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Associate, an estimated NAV, which is an amount per Share representing the current value of the Portfolio Positions that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Listing Market.
10. Each Fund will recoup the settlement costs charged by NSCC and DTC by imposing a fee (the “Transaction Fee”) on investors purchasing or redeeming Creation Units. Where a Fund permits an in-kind purchaser or redeemer to deposit or receive cash in lieu of one or more Deposit or Redemption Instruments, the purchaser or redeemer may be assessed a higher Transaction Fee to offset the cost of buying or selling those particular Deposit or Redemption Instruments. In all cases, such Transaction Fees will be limited in accordance with requirements of the Commission applicable to management investment companies offering redeemable securities. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through an Authorized Participant and the Distributor will transmit such orders to the Funds. The Distributor will be responsible for maintaining records of both the orders placed with it and the confirmations of acceptance furnished by it.
11. Purchasers of Shares in Creation Units may hold such Shares or may sell such Shares into the secondary market. Shares will be listed and traded at negotiated prices on a Listing Market and it is expected that the relevant Listing Market will designate one or more member firms to maintain a market for the Shares.
12. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
13. Shares will not be individually redeemable and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund, or tender such shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. As discussed above, redemptions of Creation Units will
14. Neither a Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or mutual fund. Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” All marketing materials that describe the features or method of obtaining, buying, or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on a Listing Market, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund or tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
15. Each Fund's Web site (“Web site”), which will be publicly available prior to the offering of Shares, will include the Fund's prospectus (“Prospectus”), statement of additional information (“SAI”), and summary prospectus, if used. The Web site will contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or the Bid/Ask Price against such NAV. On each Business Day, prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on a Listing Market, each Fund shall post on the Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the calculation of the NAV at the end of that Business Day.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act; and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such 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) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and that Creation Units will always be redeemable in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Applicants further state that because the market price of Shares will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c–1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants state that, while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c–1, appear to have been designed to (a) to prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) to prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers and (c) to ensure an orderly distribution system of shares by contract dealers by eliminating price competition from non-contract dealers who could offer investors shares at less than the published sales price and who could pay investors a little more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants assert that the protections intended to be afforded by Section 22(d) and rule 22c–1 are adequately addressed by the proposed methods for creating, redeeming and pricing Creation Units and pricing and trading Shares. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces but do not occur as a result of unjust or discriminatory manipulation. Finally, applicants assert that competitive forces in the marketplace should ensure that the margin between NAV and the price for the Shares in the secondary market remains narrow.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that the settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of the Foreign and Global Funds is contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign
8. Applicants state that section 22(e) was designed to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants assert that the protections intended to be afforded by Section 22(e) are adequately addressed by the proposed method and securities delivery cycles for redeeming Creation Units. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of fifteen (15) calendar days
9. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, or any other broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
10. Applicants request relief to permit Acquiring Funds to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Broker to sell Shares to Acquiring Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.
11. Applicants submit that their proposed conditions address concerns regarding the potential for undue influence. To limit the control that an Acquiring Fund may have over a Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the adviser of an Acquiring Management Company (“Acquiring Fund Advisor”), sponsor of an Acquiring Trust (“Sponsor”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Acquiring Fund Advisor or Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised or sponsored by the Acquiring Fund Advisor, the Sponsor, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Acquiring Fund Advisor or Sponsor (“Acquiring Fund's Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to any sub-adviser to an Acquiring Fund (“Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor”), any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor (“Acquiring Fund's Sub-Advisory Group”).
12. Applicants propose a condition to ensure that no Acquiring Fund or Acquiring Fund Affiliate
13. Applicants propose several conditions to address the potential for layering of fees. Applicants note that the Board of any Acquiring Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (for any Board, the “Independent Trustees”), will be required to find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Acquiring Management Company may invest. Applicants also state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Acquiring Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
14. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of
15. To ensure that an Acquiring Fund is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Acquiring Funds must enter into an agreement with the respective Funds (“Acquiring Fund Agreement”). The Acquiring Fund Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Acquiring Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in a Fund and not in any other investment company.
16. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person (“Second Tier Affiliates”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the 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 the fund and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
17. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units from the Funds by persons that are affiliated persons or Second Tier Affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the Shares of a Trust of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds. Applicants also request an exemption in order to permit each Fund to sell Shares to and redeem Shares from, and engage in the in-kind transactions that would accompany such sales and redemptions with, any Acquiring Fund of which the Fund is an affiliated person or Second-Tier Affiliate.
18. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons or Second Tier Affiliates from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions will be the same for all purchases and redemptions. Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Positions currently held by the relevant Funds and the valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in an identical manner regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Applicants do not believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching of the Fund.
19. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Acquiring Fund satisfies the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants note that any consideration paid for the purchase or redemption of Shares directly from a Fund will be based on the NAV of the Fund.
20. Applicants believe that: (a) With respect to the relief requested pursuant to section 17(b), the proposed transactions are fair and reasonable, and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy of each Fund and, where applicable, Acquiring Fund, and the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act; and (b) with respect to the relief requested pursuant to section 6(c), the requested exemption for the proposed transactions is 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.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
2. The Web site, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
3. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, its Shares will be listed on a Listing Market.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on a Fund's Listing Market, the Fund will disclose on the Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the
5. The Adviser or any Sub-Advisers, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for a Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively-managed exchange-traded funds.
7. The members of an Acquiring Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of an Acquiring Fund's Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Acquiring Fund's Advisory Group or the Acquiring Fund's Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of that Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Acquiring Fund's Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
8. No Acquiring Fund or Acquiring Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Acquiring Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Acquiring Fund or an Acquiring Fund Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
9. The Board of an Acquiring Management Company, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Acquiring Fund Advisor and any Acquiring Fund Sub-Advisor are conducting the investment program of the Acquiring Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Acquiring Management Company or an Acquiring Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
10. Once an investment by an Acquiring Fund in the Shares of a Fund exceeds the limits in section l2(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of the Fund, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to an Acquiring Fund or an Acquiring Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
11. No Acquiring Fund or Acquiring Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause the Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
12. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by an Acquiring Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board of the Fund will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Acquiring Fund in the Fund. The Board of the Fund will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board of the Fund will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to ensure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
13. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings, once an investment by an Acquiring Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the determinations of the Board of the Fund were made.
14. Before investing in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), each Acquiring Fund and the Fund will execute an Acquiring Fund Agreement stating, without limitation, that their Boards and their investment adviser(s), or their Sponsors or trustees (“Trustee”), as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the requested order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the requested order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Acquiring Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Acquiring Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Acquiring Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Acquiring Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list of the names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Acquiring Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the requested order, the Acquiring Fund Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
15. The Acquiring Fund Advisor, Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Acquiring Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted under rule 12b–1 under the Act) received from the Fund by the Acquiring Fund Advisor, Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the
16. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Acquiring Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
17. No Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent the Fund acquires securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
18. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the Board of each Acquiring Management Company, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such advisory contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Acquiring Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Acquiring Management Company.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of public availability of FY 2014 Service Contract inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117), the Small Business Administration is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2014 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in FY 2014. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The Small Business Administration has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Small Business Administration homepage at the following link:
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to William Cody in the Procurement Division at (303) 844–3499 or
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 6, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2015–1867 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267–4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 6, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2015–1475 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alphonso Pendergrass (202) 267–4713, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
The Petitioner also seeks an exemption from Title 14 CFR Section 61.213(a)(3) based on military competence. This exemption would allow current and former members meeting the requirements of sections § 61.213(a)(1), (2), and (4) as appropriate along with supporting documents determined by the Administrator to be granted a Federal Aviation Administration Ground Instructor Certificate based on military competence.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting; continuation of comment period.
This notice announces an upcoming public briefing and the continued collection of comments regarding the technical reports for the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (CTSWLS). On June 5, 2015, DOT released the five technical reports to the public and to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for peer review.
A public meeting will be held on June 18, 2015 at 1:00 p.m., e.t.. The public docket (FHWA–2014–0035) will remain open until a Final Report is submitted to Congress or until further notice by FHWA.
The fourth public meeting will be conducted as a virtual public meeting (webinar format) to maximize public access to the briefing. Additional details and registration information will be sent to individuals who have registered for email updates on the CTSWLS; registration information will also be posted on FHWA's CTSWLS Web site:
You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA–2014–0035 by any one of the following methods:
Send an email to
Section 32801 of MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141) requires DOT to conduct a CTSWLS addressing differences in safety risks, infrastructure impacts, and the effect on levels of enforcement between trucks operating at or within Federal truck size and weight limits and trucks legally operating in excess of Federal limits; comparing and contrasting the potential safety and infrastructure impacts of alternative configurations (including configurations that exceed current Federal limits to the current Federal law and regulations); and, estimating the effects of freight diversion due to these alternative configurations.
The DOT released the technical reports to the public and submitted them to the NAS on June 5, 2015 for peer review. The technical reports are available on FHWA's CTSWLS Web site:
The DOT is releasing these materials in advance of submitting a Final Report to Congress.
On June 18, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., e.t., DOT will hold a virtual public meeting to provide an overview of the technical reports and update on the remaining tasks to complete the Final Report for the CTSWLS. This meeting will be recorded.
An additional presentation will be made for the second and final phase of the NAS peer review; details on the public portion of that meeting will be posted on the NAS and DOT CTSWLS Web sites and sent by email to people who have requested notification through the CTSWLS email distribution list.
The public docket for comments (FHWA–2014–00350) on any aspect of the CTSWLS, including the technical reports, will remain open until the Final Report is submitted to Congress or until further notice by FHWA.
The DOT invites the public to participate in these meetings and to direct comments to the public docket.
Sec. 32801, Pub. L. 112–141.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by documents dated October 9, 2013 and November 18, 2014, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations governing the operation of passenger trains on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Relief was also requested from speed limitations imposed by the Order of Particular Applicability for the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) Order. Specifically, Amtrak seeks relief from requirements that limit the current operation of its Tier II Acela trainsets to 150 mph from the current maximum authorized track speed for Class 8 track of 160 mph. In addition, Amtrak also requests relief from existing Tier II design requirements to allow for the procurement of new trainsets built to alternative design standards, as outlined in its petition. A previous notice was published outlining the details of Amtrak's petitions, on February 25, 2015 [80 FR 10208]. FRA assigned the petitions to Docket Numbers FRA–2013–0128 and FRA–2014–0124, respectively.
FRA has determined that the facts of these proceedings warrant a public hearing. Accordingly, a hearing is hereby scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. on July 22, 2015, at the National Housing Center, 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at this hearing. For information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the hearing, contact FRA Program Analyst, Kenton Kilgore; by telephone, email, or in writing; at least five business days before the date of the hearing. Mr. Kilgore's contact information is as follows: FRA, Office of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 493–6286;
The informal hearing will be conducted by a representative designated by FRA in accordance with FRA's Rules of Practice (see particularly 49 CFR 211.25). FRA's representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing, as well as any additional procedures for the conduct of the hearing. The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding in which all interested parties will be given the opportunity to express their views regarding the waiver petition without cross examination. After all initial statements have been completed, those individuals wishing to make brief rebuttal statements will be given an opportunity to do so.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
In addition, FRA is hereby extending the comment period for these waiver petitions to August 21, 2015, to allow adequate time for any additional comments to be submitted following the public hearing on July 22, 2015. Communications received by that date will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket numbers and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST–R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Written comments should be submitted by August 14, 2015.
Cecelia Robinson, Office of Airline Information, RTS–42, Room E34–410, OST–R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone Number (202) 366–4405, Fax Number (202) 366–3383 or Email
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Part 234 gives air travelers information concerning the on-time performance history of flights and the rate of mishandled baggage for each reporting carrier. The reports are filed by the 14 largest scheduled-service U.S. passenger carriers.
On July 15, 2011 the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to change the manner in which baggage data are reported (
In the preamble to the Notice, the Department stated that the change in the matrix to mishandled bags per unit of checked bags would give consumers more reliable information on the air carriers' performance regarding the treatment of baggage within their control. Under the current system, there is no direct relationship between the number of mishandled bags and the number of checked bags. With the institution of baggage fees, the number of checked bags at some carriers has declined by 40 to 50 percent. There has been a corresponding 40 percent decline (
A separate breakout of mishandled wheelchairs/scooters would assist passengers with mobility disabilities in selecting air carriers with high probabilities of meeting their special needs. There is a gap in the Department's data regarding the mishandling of wheelchairs and scooters. The proposed data would provide information to passenger with
The Federal Aviation Administration uses Part 234 data to pinpoint and analyze air traffic delays. Wheels-up and wheels-down times are used in conjunction with departure and arrival times to show the extent of ground delays. Actual elapsed flight time, wheels-down minus wheels-up time, is compared to scheduled elapsed flight time to identify airborne delays. The reporting of aircraft tail number allows the FAA to track an aircraft through the air network, which enables the FAA to study the ripple effects of delays at hub airports. The data can be analyzed for airport design changes, new equipment purchases, the planning of new runways or airports based on current and projected airport delays and traffic levels. The identification of the reason for delays allows the FAA, airport operators, and air carriers to pinpoint delays under their control.
The
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request 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 July 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion 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 submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
Notice of open meetings to be held in Washington, DC to review and edit drafts of 2015 Annual Report to Congress on the following dates: July 8–9, August 12–13, September 16–17, and October 7–8, 2015.
Notice is hereby given of meetings of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate and report to Congress annually on the U.S.-China economic and security relationship. The mandate specifically charges the Commission to prepare a report to Congress “regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China [that] shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions . . .”
The Commission is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with the enactment of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 that was signed into law on November 22, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–108). In accordance with FACA, the Commission's meeting to make decisions concerning the substance and recommendations of its 2015 Annual Report to Congress are open to the public.
• U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations, including: The foreign investment climate in China, China's economic reforms, and commercial cyber espionage and barriers to digital trade in China.
• Security and Foreign Policy Issues Involving China, including: China's
• China and the world, including: China and Central Asia, China and Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
All report review-editing sessions will be held in The Hall of the States (North Bldg., 2nd Floor), located at 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Public seating is limited and will be available on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Advanced reservations are not required. All participants must register at the front desk of the lobby.
The open meetings will also be adjourned around noon for a lunch break. At the beginning of the lunch break, the Chairman will announce what time the Annual Report review and editing session will reconvene.
Reed Eckhold, Congressional Liaison and Director of Communications, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; Phone: (202) 624–1496; Email:
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Educational Agencies (SEAs). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years.
These priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria are effective July 15, 2015.
Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6818 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement announces the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CSP Grants to SEAs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the development of
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: This regulatory action announces four priorities, four requirements, four definitions, and nine selection criteria that may be used for CSP Grants to SEAs competitions in FY 2015 and later years. This regulatory action's purpose is to achieve three main goals.
The first goal is to ensure that CSP funds are directed toward the creation of
The second goal is to strengthen public accountability and oversight for authorized public chartering agencies (also referred to as authorizers). The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria collectively provide incentives for SEAs to implement CSP requirements, as well as State law and policies, in a manner that encourages authorized public chartering agencies to focus on school quality through rigorous and transparent charter approval processes. For example,
The third goal is to support and improve academic outcomes for
In addition to the three goals outlined above, we believe this notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP or notice) streamlines the CSP application process. For example, selection criterion (f)
Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe will be minimal. This action will not impose cost-bearing requirements on participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application for a CSP grant and would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department awards CSP grants to SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided for traditional public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants to SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools and for the dissemination of information about successful charter schools, including practices that existing charter schools have demonstrated are successful.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the
The
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raise concerns not directly related to the priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria.
Regarding the comment that
Finally, we note that each priority can be used independently in any given competition. We believe that the overlapping elements across some of the priorities emphasize critical factors and provide the Department with flexibility to use or not use a particular priority in any given year.
Finally, we note that the priority is designed to strengthen authorizer oversight. In specific instances, certain State laws allow charters to be awarded for a term of up to 15 years before being evaluated for renewal. In such circumstances, this priority is designed to promote more frequent reviews and evaluations. An SEA in a State that requires authorizers to conduct reviews and evaluations more frequently than every five years will not be penalized.
In addition, we decline to remove from
We agree that
We decline to require that SEAs submit F–33 data for charter schools in order to meet this priority. The F–33 survey is a data collection and data census effort supported by NCES, whereas
Another commenter expressed concerns about the disruptive nature of charter school closures and suggested that the Department place a greater emphasis on high standards for authorizer performance, including consequences for persistently poor-performing authorizers.
We note that paragraph (b) of
For purposes of this program, we agree that authorizers should be able to exercise discretion in approving charters through a differentiated process based on the past performance of charter school developers.
By promoting differentiated review, we intend to encourage authorizers to acknowledge that there are additional factors to consider when reviewing a charter petition from an existing charter school developer versus a charter petition from a charter school developer who is not currently operating charter schools. For these reasons, we decline to delete the paragraph.
We decline to revise paragraph (c) of this priority. Multi-tiered clearance or review will often involve making a determination about whether a charter school is prepared to open and operate successfully. However, there may be scenarios where the multi-tiered clearance or review is more involved or examines other elements, and we want to give authorizers latitude to consider those elements. For this reason, we believe it would be counter-productive to limit the focus of the paragraph to the evaluation of readiness to open and operate.
Finally, we decline to delete the reference to high-quality in paragraph (d) because a major purpose of the CSP Grants for SEAs program is to foster the development of
We believe that in any year in which we run a competition, the combination of priorities, requirements, and selection criteria in the NIA will ensure that high-quality applications will have an opportunity to receive funding. We disagree that
Several commenters expressed a general concern that the Department should not give priority to States that have been unsuccessful in receiving a CSP grant over States that have received CSP funding in the past. One commenter suggested that
We also disagree that
The logic model represents one of many sources of information to allow us to assess grantee progress. In addition, we believe that developing a logic model will help SEAs clearly articulate their proposed outcomes and methods for achieving them. The logic model will also assist peer reviewers in evaluating the merits and key elements of each applicant's project plan. Because of its importance to the process, we believe that a logic model is not unduly burdensome as part of a well-developed application.
Department regulations define a logic model in 34 CFR 77.1, and we will refer all applicants to that definition in any NIA in which we utilize this requirement. We may provide supplemental information in an NIA or through other means that we believe will benefit applicants during a grant competition.
We do not intend to compare one applicant's State definition of
For purposes of this definition, we consider students who meet the definition of homeless children and youths under section 725(2) of McKinney-Vento (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)) to be homeless students and thus among the groups of students covered. We do not believe it is necessary to revise the definition to this end.
We also decline to revise paragraph (a)(1) of the definition to require high or increased student academic achievement. We do not believe that the definition, as written, will penalize an existing high-achieving charter school. A charter school with students who demonstrate high rates of proficiency on State assessments, for example, can still demonstrate increases in academic achievement in other ways, such as increasing school-wide proficiency rates or increasing the number of students at the advanced level. We believe that it is important to encourage increases in student academic achievement and attainment even in a school with comparatively high-performing students. We also note that this definition addresses student mastery of grade-level standards.
We next address the comment that many of the elements of the definition are confusing. This definition provides discrete and measurable indicators for defining a charter school as high-quality. The rate at which a charter
In addition, SEAs that are required to respond to this criterion will not be at a disadvantage for having few or no
As discussed above, selection criteria do not impose requirements on applicants, but merely request information to enable peer reviewers to evaluate how well an applicant will comply with certain programmatic requirements based on their responses to the selection criteria. Thus, while we encourage SEAs and charter schools to take steps to improve student body diversity in charter schools, paragraph (2) of selection criterion (g)
In addition, although SEAs' statutory authority over authorizers varies from State to State, all charter schools receiving CSP subgrants through the SEA must comply with applicable Federal and State laws, including Federal civil rights laws and part B of the IDEA, to meet the Federal definition of a charter school (section 5210(1)(G) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7221i).
We also refer the commenter to selection criterion (a)
We also disagree with the proposed revisions to paragraph (7). We recognize that autonomy manifests in many ways and that the degree of autonomy afforded to charter schools is based on State law. With this criterion, we ask SEAs to describe their plans to ensure that authorizers are supporting charter school autonomy; this could be through the authorizer's provision of that autonomy, but also could occur in other indirect ways. For this reason, we decline to revise the language as suggested by the commenter. Finally, we agree that the terms “public” and “government” are not synonymous with respect to authorizers.
For applicants that require additional information about these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, the Department will include information in each NIA on any planned pre-application meetings as well as instructions on how to request additional information.
With regard to the commenter's request that we require impact statements, we do not believe that requiring an SEA to conduct an annual impact assessment of charter schools represents the best expenditure of CSP funds. Further, elements related to impact could be addressed in selection criterion (a)
With regard to the final point, we disagree with the commenter and note that an SEA's authority is an issue of State law. We do, however, believe that these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria may motivate a State to exercise a more active role over authorizer accountability.
To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every five years, unless required more frequently by State law, and takes steps to ensure that such reviews take place. The review and evaluation must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in the school's charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation. This periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity for the authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.
To meet this priority, an application must demonstrate that State law, regulations, or other policies in the State where the applicant is located require the following:
(a) That each charter school in the State—
(1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and the authorized public chartering agency;
(2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency; and
(3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and
(b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)) as one of the most important factors when determining whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.
To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use one or more of the following:
(a) Frameworks and processes to evaluate the performance of charter schools on a regular basis that include—
(1) Rigorous academic and operational performance expectations (including performance expectations related to financial management and equitable treatment of all students and applicants);
(2) Performance objectives for each school aligned to those expectations;
(3) Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an objective body of evidence, including evidence that the charter school has (a) met the performance objectives outlined in the charter or performance contract; (b)
(4) Clear criteria for revoking the charter of a school if there is violation of a law or public trust regarding student safety or public funds, or evidence of poor student academic achievement; and
(5) Annual reporting by authorized public chartering agencies to each of their authorized charter schools that summarizes the individual school's performance and compliance, based on this framework, and identifies any areas that need improvement.
(b) Clear and specific standards and formalized processes that measure and benchmark the performance of the authorized public chartering agency or agencies, including the performance of its portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual dissemination of information on such performance;
(c) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for evaluating charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance or review of a charter school, including a final review immediately before the school opens for its first operational year; or
(d) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of charter petitions to assess whether, and the extent to which, the charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one or more high-quality charter schools.
To meet this priority, an applicant must be an eligible SEA applicant that has never received a CSP grant.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
(a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the definition of
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
(a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the definition of
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
(a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three years and that—
(1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA) over the past three years; and
(2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth of at least an average of one grade level for each cohort of students in each of the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other assessments approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
(a) A charter school that shows evidence of strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following factors:
(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment (including, if applicable and available, high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) for all students, including, as
(2) Either—
(i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) at the charter school; or
(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student academic achievement for all populations of students served by the charter school;
(3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary education attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education persistence rates) for low-income and other
(4) Results on a performance framework established by the State or authorized public chartering agency for the purpose of evaluating charter school quality; and
(5) No
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
(a)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's CSP activities, including the subgrant program, are integrated into the State's overall strategy for improving student academic achievement and attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) and closing achievement and attainment gaps, and complement or leverage other statewide education reform efforts;
(2) The extent to which funding equity for charter schools (including equitable funding for charter school facilities) is incorporated into the SEA's State-level strategy; and
(3) The extent to which the State encourages local strategies for improving student academic achievement and attainment that involve charter schools, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Collaboration, including the sharing of data and promising instructional and other practices, between charter schools and other public schools or providers of early learning and development programs or alternative education programs; and
(ii) The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable options for students who currently attend, or would otherwise attend, the State's lowest-performing schools.
(b)
(1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the State's charter school law, including:
(i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools; and
(ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum;
(2) The quality of the SEA's processes for:
(i) Annually informing each charter school in the State about Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and
(ii) Annually ensuring that each charter school in the State receives, in a timely fashion, the school's commensurate share of Federal funds that are allocated by formula each year, particularly during the first year of operation of the school and during a year in which the school's enrollment expands significantly; and
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law and LEAs in which charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400,
(c)
(1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(3) Whether, and the extent to which, the academic achievement and academic attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) of charter school students equal or exceed the academic achievement and academic attainment of similar students in other public schools in the State over the past five years.
(d)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's charter school subgrant program would—
(i) Assist students, particularly
(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement gaps for
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain
(3) The extent to which the SEA will encourage innovations in charter schools, such as models, policies, supports, or structures, that are designed to improve the academic achievement of
(4) The quality of the SEA's plan for monitoring all charter schools to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, particularly laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and access to public schools for
(e)
(1) The quality of the SEA's systems for collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting data on charter school performance, including data on student academic achievement, attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates), retention, and discipline for all students and disaggregated by student subgroup;
(2) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the creation of
(3) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the closure of
(f)
(1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State for identifying and disseminating information and research (which may include, but is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about best or promising practices in successful charter schools, including how the SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities;
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices used by, and the benefits of, charter schools that effectively incorporate student body diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity and diversity with respect to
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to student discipline and school climate; and
(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a portion of its grant funds to award dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(f)(6)(B)), the quality of the subgrant award process and the likelihood that such dissemination activities will increase the number of
(g)
(1) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers that have the capacity to create charter schools that can become
(2) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with respect to
(3) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that are consistent with the definition of
(4) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the terms of their charters or performance contracts and complying with applicable State and Federal laws;
(5) Using increases in student academic achievement as one of the most important factors in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions on a comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter or performance contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the voluntary termination of charters held by
(6) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter or performance contract;
(7) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters or performance contracts; and
(8) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems, including those based on college- and career-ready standards.
(h)
(1) The quality, including the cohesiveness and strength of reasoning, of the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), and the extent to which it
(2) The extent to which the SEA's project-specific performance measures, including any measures required by the Department, support the logic model; and
(3) The adequacy of the management plan to—
(i) Achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including the existence of clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
(ii) Address any compliance issues or findings related to the CSP that are identified in an audit or other monitoring review.
(i)
(1) The quality of the SEA's process for awarding subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation, and, if applicable, for dissemination, including:
(i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will be awarded to eligible applicants demonstrating the capacity to create
(ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence, of (a) the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the project period and the average size of those subgrants, including an explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based; and (b) if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage related to the overall quality of the applicant pool;
(2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees;
(3) How the SEA will create a portfolio of subgrantees that focuses on areas of need within the State, such as increasing student body diversity or maintaining a high level of student body diversity, and how this focus aligns with the
(4) The steps the SEA will take to inform teachers, parents, and communities of the SEA's charter school subgrant program; and
(5) A description of any requested waivers of statutory or regulatory provisions over which the Secretary exercises administrative authority and the extent to which those waivers will, if granted, further the objectives of the project.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action would have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million because we anticipate awarding more than $100 million in grants to SEAs in FY 2015. Therefore, this action is “economically significant” and subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this final regulatory action and have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs and benefits of this action, comments we received regarding those costs and benefits, and regulatory alternatives we considered.
The Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible SEAs, whose participation in this program is voluntary. This action would not impose requirements on participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application for a CSP grant. The costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for CSP grants the SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of
We received several comments expressing concern that this regulatory action imposes undue administrative burden on applicants and grantees. Although the Department recognizes that there are costs to SEAs associated with applying for and receiving CSP grants, we do not believe that the requirements imposed on SEAs through this regulatory action—which relate only to preparing an application for a CSP grant—carry significant costs. Moreover, for the reasons noted in the preceding section, we believe the benefits of this action to the Federal government and to SEAs outweigh those costs.
We note, in addition, that SEAs receiving CSP grants may use up to 5 percent of grant funds for administrative costs associated with carrying out their grant projects.
The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the selection factors authorized for CSP grants to SEAs in section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(a)) and the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these factors and criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, the factors and criteria would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past performance with respect to the operation of
We note that several of the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria in this NFP are based on priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this program.
As required by OMB Circular A–4 (available at
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
These regulations have been determined to be major for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801,
These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are needed to conduct the 2015 CSP Grants for SEAs competition. The Department must award funds authorized for this program under the FY 2015 Appropriations Act for this competition to qualified applicants by September 30, 2015, or the funds will lapse. Even on an extremely expedited timeline, it is impracticable for the Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed effective date for the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria and make grant awards to qualified applicants by the September 30, 2015 deadline. When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to the time the Department will need to receive applications (approximately 35 days), review the applications (approximately 45 days), and finally approve applications (approximately 30 days), the Department will not be able to allocate funds authorized under the FY 2015 Appropriations Act to all qualified applicants by September 30, 2015.
Not being able to allocate the approximately $116 million would have a significant negative effect on the quality of charter schools and public accountability and oversight. The Department has therefore determined that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective date generally required for congressional review is impracticable, contrary to the public interest, and waived for good cause.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants for State Educational Agencies (SEAs).
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.282A.
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided for traditional public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for SEAs competition is to enable SEAs to provide financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants (also referred to as non-SEA eligible applicants), for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools and for the dissemination of information about successful charter schools, including practices that existing charter schools have demonstrated are successful.
The second goal is to strengthen public accountability and oversight for authorized public chartering agencies (also referred to as authorizers). The notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the
The third goal is to support and improve academic outcomes for
In addition to the three goals outlined above, we believe the 2015 CSP Grants for SEAs competition streamlines the CSP application process. For example, selection criterion (f)
All charter schools receiving CSP funds, as outlined in section 5210 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), must comply with various non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and applicable State laws.
With respect to opening and operating a single-sex charter school, the applicant should ensure that charter schools in its State comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every five years, unless required more frequently by State law, and takes steps to ensure that such reviews take place. The review and evaluation must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school's charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in the school's charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation. This periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity
To meet this priority, an application must demonstrate that State law, regulations, or other policies in the State where the applicant is located require the following:
(a) That each charter school in the State—
(1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency;
(2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency; and
(3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and
(b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)) as one of the most important factors when determining whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use one or more of the following:
(a) Frameworks and processes to evaluate the performance of charter schools on a regular basis that include—
(1) Rigorous academic and operational performance expectations (including performance expectations related to financial management and equitable treatment of all students and applicants);
(2) Performance objectives for each school aligned to those expectations;
(3) Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an objective body of evidence, including evidence that the charter school has (a) met the performance objectives outlined in the charter or performance contract; (b) demonstrated organizational and fiscal viability; and (c) demonstrated fidelity to the terms of the charter or performance contract and applicable law;
(4) Clear criteria for revoking the charter of a school if there is violation of law or public trust regarding student safety or public funds, or evidence of poor student academic achievement; and
(5) Annual reporting by authorized public chartering agencies to each of their authorized charter schools that summarizes the individual school's performance and compliance, based on this framework, and identifies any areas that need improvement.
(b) Clear and specific standards and formalized processes that measure and benchmark the performance of the authorized public chartering agency or agencies, including the performance of its portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual dissemination of information on such performance;
(c) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for evaluating charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance or review of a charter school, including a final review immediately before the school opens for its first operational year; or
(d) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of charter petitions to assess whether, and the extent to which, the charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one or more high-quality charter schools.
To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State—
(a) Provides for one authorized public chartering agency that is not an LEA, such as a State chartering board, for each individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school pursuant to State law; or
(b) In the case of a State in which LEAs are the only authorized public chartering agencies, allows for an appeals process for the denial of an application for a charter school.
In order to meet this priority under paragraph (b) above, the entity hearing appeal must have the authority to approve the charter application over the objections of the LEA.
To meet this priority, an applicant must be an eligible SEA applicant that has never received a CSP grant.
These application requirements are from section 5203(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b(b)) and the NFP. An applicant may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria, when applicable.
(i)
(a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the definition of
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
(ii)
(iii)
(a) Will inform each charter school in the State about Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and
(b) Will ensure that each charter school in the State receives the school's commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year, including during the first year of operation of the school and a year in which the school's enrollment expands significantly;
(iv)
(a) Written certification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the definition of
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
(v)
(vi)
The applicant should review section VI.4
For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision-making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models:
(vii)
(viii) Objectives: Describe the objectives of the SEA's charter school grant program, as requested in selection criterion (h)
(ix)
(x)
Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, the NFP, and section 5210 of the CSP authorizing statute (20 U.S.C. 7221i).
(a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three years and that—
(1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA) over the past three years; and
(2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth of at least an average of one grade level for each cohort of students in each of the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other assessments approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
(a) A charter school that shows evidence of strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following factors:
(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment (including, if applicable and available, high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) for all students, including, as applicable,
(2) Either—
(i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA
(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student academic achievement for all populations of students served by the charter school;
(3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary education attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education persistence rates) for low-income and other
(4) Results on a performance framework established by the State or authorized public chartering agency for the purpose of evaluating charter school quality; and
(5) No
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to institutions of higher education.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The FY 2015 Appropriations Act authorizes the use of CSP funds “for grants that support preschool education in charter schools.” Accordingly, an application submitted under this competition may propose to use CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools. For guidance on how charter schools may use CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools, please see the Department's nonregulatory guidance, entitled Charter Schools Program Guidance on the Use of Funds to Support Preschool Education, released in November 2014, at
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The estimated range, average size, and number of awards are based on a single 12-month budget period. However, the Department may choose to fund more than 12 months of a project using FY 2015 funds.
SEAs may award planning and implementation subgrants to eligible applicants for a period of up to three years, no more than 18 months of which may be used for planning and program design and no more than two years of which may be used for the initial implementation of a charter school. SEAs may award dissemination subgrants to eligible charter schools for a period of up to two years.
1.
Non-SEA eligible applicants in States in which the SEA elects not to participate in or does not have an application approved under the CSP may apply for funding directly from the Department. The Department is holding a separate competition for CSP grants to non-SEA eligible applicants under CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282C. The notice inviting applications for new awards under CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282C will be published later in FY 2015. Additional information about the competitions for non-SEA eligible applicants is available at
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative (Part
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
3.
For further information about the pre-application meeting, contact Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6818 or by email:
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
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) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include (i) refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and (ii) professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and
(b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include (i) informing the community about the school; (ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies; (iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and (iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources. (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(3))
(a) Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;
(b) Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student academic achievement in each of the schools participating in the partnership;
(c) Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and
(d) Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student achievement.
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 (CCR)), 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. A DUNS number
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. 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, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the CSP Grants for SEAs competition, CFDA number 84.282A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for CSP Grants for SEAs competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202–5970. FAX: (202) 205–5630.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282A, 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.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
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.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282A, 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.
(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.
The Secretary does not consider selection criterion (c)
In general, an SEA should clearly identify each selection criterion it addresses in its application. The maximum possible score for addressing each selection criterion is indicated in parentheses following the selection criterion. The maximum possible total score (based on the selection criteria and not including the competitive preference priorities) is 100 points, except that, for SEAs in States that first enacted a charter school law less than five years before the closing date of this competition, the maximum possible total score is 90 points because, as noted above, the Secretary does not consider selection criterion (c) in evaluating applications from these SEAs. The Secretary will convert each SEA's total score (including any additional points received based on the competitive
In evaluating an application, the Secretary considers the following selection criteria:
(a)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's CSP activities, including the subgrant program, are integrated into the State's overall strategy for improving student academic achievement and attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) and closing achievement and attainment gaps, and complement or leverage other statewide education reform efforts;
(2) The extent to which funding equity for charter schools (including equitable funding for charter school facilities) is incorporated into the SEA's State-level strategy; and
(3) The extent to which the State encourages local strategies for improving student academic achievement and attainment that involve charter schools, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Collaboration, including the sharing of data and promising instructional and other practices, between charter schools and other public schools or providers of early learning and development programs or alternative education programs; and
(ii) The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable options for students who currently attend, or would otherwise attend, the State's lowest-performing schools.
(b)
The Secretary considers the policy context for charter schools under the proposed project. In determining the policy context for charter schools under the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the State's charter school law, including:
(i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools; and
(ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum;
(2) The quality of the SEA's processes for:
(i) Annually informing each charter school in the State about Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and
(ii) Annually ensuring that each charter school in the State receives, in a timely fashion, the school's commensurate share of Federal funds that are allocated by formula each year, particularly during the first year of operation of the school and during a year in which the school's enrollment expands significantly; and
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law and LEAs in which charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400,
(c)
(1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(3) Whether, and the extent to which, the academic achievement and academic attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) of charter school students equal or exceed the academic achievement and academic attainment of similar students in other public schools in the State over the past five years.
(d)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's charter school subgrant program would—
(i) Assist students, particularly
(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement gaps for
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain
(3) The extent to which the SEA will encourage innovations in charter schools, such as models, policies, supports, or structures, that are designed to improve the academic achievement of
(4) The quality of the SEA's plan for monitoring all charter schools to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, particularly laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and access to public schools for
(e)
(1) The quality of the SEA's systems for collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting data on charter school performance, including data on student academic achievement, attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates), retention, and discipline for all students and disaggregated by student subgroup;
(2) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the creation of
(3) The ambitiousness, quality of vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the closure of
In the context of closing
(f)
(1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State for identifying and disseminating information and research (which may include, but is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about best or promising practices in successful charter schools, including how the SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities;
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices used by, and the benefits of, charter schools that effectively incorporate student body diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity and diversity with respect to
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to student discipline and school climate; and
(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a portion of its grant funds to award dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(f)(6)(B)), the quality of the subgrant award process and the likelihood that such dissemination activities will increase the number of
(g)
(1) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers that have the capacity to create charter schools that can become
(2) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with respect to
(3) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that are consistent with the definition of
(4) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the terms of their charter or performance contracts and complying with applicable State and Federal laws;
(5) Using increases in student academic achievement as one of the most important factors in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions on a comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter or performance contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the voluntary termination of charters held by
(6) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter or performance contract;
(7) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters or performance contracts; and
(8) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems, including those based on college- and career-ready standards.
(h)
(1) The quality, including the cohesiveness and strength of reasoning, of the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) and the extent to which it addresses the role of the grant in promoting the State-level strategy for using charter schools to improve educational outcomes for students through CSP subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation; optional dissemination subgrants; optional revolving loan funds; and other strategies;
(2) The extent to which the SEA's project-specific performance measures, including any measures required by the Department, support the logic model; and
(3) The adequacy of the management plan to—
(i) Achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including the existence of clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
(ii) Address any compliance issues or findings related to the CSP that are identified in an audit or other monitoring review.
The Secretary encourages the applicant to propose a comprehensive management plan and theory of action for assessing the achievement of the objectives, including developing performance measures and performance targets for its proposed grant project that are consistent with those
(i)
(1) The quality of the SEA's process for awarding subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation and, if applicable, for dissemination, including:
(i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will be awarded to eligible applicants demonstrating the capacity to create
(ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence, of (a) the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the project period and the average size of those subgrants, including an explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based; and (b) if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage related to the overall quality of the applicant pool;
(2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees;
(3) How the SEA will create a portfolio of subgrantees that focuses on areas of need within the State, such as increasing student body diversity or maintaining a high level of student body diversity, and how this focus aligns with the
(4) The steps the SEA will take to inform teachers, parents, and communities of the SEA's charter school subgrant program; and
(5) A description of any requested waivers of statutory or regulatory provisions over which the Secretary exercises administrative authority and the extent to which those waivers will, if granted, further the objectives of the project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also 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 multi-year 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
4.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Secretary encourages applicants to consider developing project-specific performance measures and targets tied to their grant activities as well as to student academic achievement during the grant period. The project-specific performance measures should be sufficient to gauge the progress throughout the grant period, show results by the end of the grant period, and be included in the logic model as outlined in the Application Requirements section of this document.
(4)
If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for their proposed project.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
5.
6.
Kathryn Meeley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6818 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