Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Parole Commission
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; correction.
On January 18, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule amending the test procedures for microwave ovens to include provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode power. On June 17, 2013, DOE published a final rule adopting energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode. This document addresses a drafting error in the June 2013 standards final rule, which referenced the incorrect provision for determining standby power for microwave ovens. Neither the error nor the correction in this document affect the substance of both the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings or any of the conclusions reached in support of those final rules.
This correction is effective on February 17, 2016.
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email:
DOE published a final rule in the
The regulatory reviews conducted for this rulemaking are those set forth in the June 2013 standards final rule that originally codified the relevant amendments to DOE's test procedures for microwave ovens. The relevant amendments in the June 2013 standards final rule became effective August 16, 2013.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), DOE has determined that notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This rule contains a technical correction to remedy the error in the June 2013 standards final rule and to correct 10 CFR 430.23(i)(3) to reference section 3.2.4 of Appendix I for determining standby power for microwave ovens. The correction provides clarity as to the appropriate section of Appendix I to be used for determining standby power for microwave ovens and does not affect the substance or the conclusions reached in the June 2013 standards final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(i) * * *
(3) The standby power for microwave ovens shall be determined according to section 3.2.4 of appendix I to this subpart. The standby power shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.1 watt.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is electronic flight controls that affect maneuvering. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on February 17, 2016. We must receive your comments by April 4, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–1077 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1119; facsimile 425–227–1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.
In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane.
The Model Falcon 5X airplane is a transport-category airplane to be operated in private/corporate transportation with a maximum of 19 passengers. The airplane incorporates a low, swept-wing design with winglets; twin rear-fuselage-mounted engines; and the newest generation of Dassault Aviation's EASy flightdeck.
The Model Falcon 5X will include electronic flight controls that affect maneuvering.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 5X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–136.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model Falcon 5X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
This airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system that provides control through pilot inputs to the flight computer, thereby affecting maneuverability of the airplane as compared to conventional control systems.
Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for control laws for which aileron deflection is proportional to control-stick deflection. They do not address nonlinearities or other effects on aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls. Because this type of system may affect flight loads, and therefore the structural capability of the airplane, specific regulations are needed to address these effects.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model Falcon 5X airplane. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later date for a
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
In lieu of compliance to § 25.349(a), the following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll-control motions (except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero, and of two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting control-surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with § 25.301(b).
1. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the absence of a rational time-history investigation of the maneuver.
2. At V
3. At V
4. At V
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–18–05 for The Boeing Company Model DC–9–10, DC–9–20, DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50 series airplanes; and Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), MD–88, and MD–90–30 airplanes; equipped with a center wing fuel tank and Boeing original equipment manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. AD 2012–18–05 required adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. Since we issued AD 2012–18–05, we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the actions for airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel tanks are removed. This new AD allows certain actions as optional methods of compliance. This AD was prompted by our determination that it is necessary to clarify the actions for airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel tanks are removed. We are issuing this AD 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.
This AD is effective March 23, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 23, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206–766–5683; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sérj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5254; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
The NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) specified Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, dated September 27, 2013; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, dated September 27, 2013; as the appropriate sources of service information for the required actions. Since the NPRM was published, both service bulletins have been revised and this AD now specifies Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015, as the source of appropriate service information for the required actions. Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; both clarify the required actions and require enlarging holes and identifying a bracket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta Air Lines supported the comments made by Boeing, which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015). Boeing explained that the proposed AD should apply to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(8) of the proposed AD if they are equipped with center wing fuel tanks, and to airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of the proposed AD if they are equipped with original equipment manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. Boeing reasoned that DC–9 center wing fuel tanks are not affected by the proposed AD, and that the “fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer” (
Boeing expressed that the FAA had previously concurred with the related Boeing SSA findings and approved Boeing Service Bulletin DC9–28–216, dated March 18, 2008, mandated by FAA AD 2009–03–03, Amendment 39–15804 (74 FR 8150, February 24, 2009), as corrective action for the electrical arc burn-through.
We agree to revise the applicability of this AD for the reasons stated by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) by adding the phrase, “and change fuel pump system wiring” after “install ground fault interrupter (GFI) relays.” Boeing reasoned that in addition to providing procedures for installing GFI relays, Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, dated September 27, 2013, also incorporates wiring changes to accommodate the GFI's operation and revises low pressure indication system wiring for center wing and auxiliary fuel tank fuel pumps. The low pressure indication system wiring changes are required to address the potential of fuel pumps running for prolonged periods in empty tanks.
Boeing also requested that we revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) by removing the phrase, “install brackets and mod block rails, and” and adding the phrase, “and change fuel pump system wiring.” Boeing reasoned that while Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, dated September 27, 2013, does specify installation of brackets and rails, as does Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, dated September 27, 2013, the primary changes that will address the unsafe condition are the GFI relay and wiring changes defined in Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, dated September 27, 2013. Boeing expressed that the brackets and rails can be omitted from the text of the NPRM, as they are referenced in the service information. Also, in addition to providing procedures for installing GFI relays, Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, dated September 27, 2013, also incorporates wiring changes to accommodate the GFI's operation and revises low pressure indication system wiring for center wing and auxiliary fuel tank fuel pumps. Boeing stated that the low pressure indication system wiring changes are required to address the potential of fuel pumps running for prolonged periods in empty tanks.
For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to revise paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2) of this AD by incorporating the requested changes. As stated earlier, since the NPRM was published, both service bulletins have been revised and this AD now specifies Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015, as the appropriate sources of service information for the required actions.
Delta requested that we revise paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) to include the latest service information. Delta noted that the proposed AD would require the incorporation of “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions specified in Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Special Compliance Item Report MDC–92K9145, Revision M” into the maintenance and inspection program. Delta noted, however, that the referenced report has been revised to Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, and it recommends that the restriction to Revision M be removed from the final rule.
For the reasons stated by the commenter, we have revised this AD to refer to the latest service information.
Delta requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) to permit credit for previously accomplished installations for paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(2) of the proposed AD. Delta reasoned that paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the proposed AD provides for the installation of GFI relays on Model MD–80 series airplanes (Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and Model MD–88 airplanes) using the procedures in Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, dated September 27, 2013. And similarly, paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD provides for the installation of GFI relays on MD–90–30 airplanes in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin MD9028–013, dated September 27, 2013. Delta explained that it has completed installation of GFI relays using the procedures in these two service bulletins on a portion of its fleet, and noted that there is no practical way to re-accomplish such modifications after the effective date of the final rule.
For the reasons given by the commenter, and the addition of the latest service information, we have provided credit for the applicable actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing GFI relays that change fuel pump system wiring, installing a low fuel pressure indication system, and enlarging holes and identifying a bracket.
We have also reviewed Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC–92K9145, Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, including Appendices A through D. This service information details special compliance items (SCIs), critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs), airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs), short-term extensions, and associated compliance intervals.
Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of the following service information.
• McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–53, Revision 1, dated April 16, 1992, which describes procedures for installing a low fuel pressure indication system.
• McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992, which describes procedures for installing a low fuel pressure indication inhibit system.
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 estimate that this AD affects 809 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 23, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2012–18–05, Amendment 39–17181 (77 FR 54793, September 6, 2012).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, that are identified in paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(8) of this AD and equipped with center wing fuel tanks; and those identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this AD that are equipped with Boeing original equipment manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. For airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel tanks are removed, the actions specified for the auxiliary fuel tanks are not required.
(1) Model DC–9–11, DC–9–12, DC–9–13, DC–9–14, DC–9–15, and DC–9–15F airplanes.
(2) Model DC–9–21 airplanes.
(3) Model DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9–32 (VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC–9–33F, DC–9–34, DC 9 34F, and DC 9 32F (C–9A, C 9B) airplanes.
(4) Model DC–9–41 airplanes.
(5) Model DC–9–51 airplanes.
(6) Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87) airplanes.
(7) Model MD–88 airplanes.
(8) Model MD–90–30 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD 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.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012–18–05, Amendment 39–17181 (77 FR 54793, September 6, 2012), with a new compliance time. Except as provided by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: As of 42 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may operate any airplane affected by this AD unless an amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate that incorporates the design features and requirements described in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD has been approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and those design features are installed on the airplane.
(1) Each electrically powered fuel pump installed in the center wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank must have a protective device installed to detect electrical faults that can cause arcing and burn through the fuel pump housing. The same device must shut off the pump by automatically removing electrical power from the pump when such faults are detected. When a fuel pump is shut off as the result of detection of an electrical fault, the device must stay latched off until the fault is cleared through maintenance action and verified that the pump and the electrical power feed are safe for operation.
(2) Additional design features must be installed to detect when any center wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank pump is running in an empty fuel tank. The prospective pump shutoff system must shut off each pump no later than 60 seconds after the fuel tank is emptied. The pump shutoff system design must preclude undetected running of a fuel pump in an empty tank, after the pump was commanded off manually or automatically.
For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and Model MD–88 airplanes; and Model MD–90–30 airplanes: In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and Model MD–88 airplanes: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) For all airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, install ground fault interrupter (GFI) relays and change fuel pump system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015.
(ii) For airplanes identified in McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–53, Revision 1, dated April 16, 1992: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD, install a low fuel pressure indication system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–53, Revision 1, dated April 16, 1992.
(iii) For airplanes identified in McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD, install a low fuel pressure indication inhibition system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992.
(2) For Model MD–90–30 airplanes: Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, install GFI relays and change fuel pump system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015.
(3) For all airplanes: Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as
(i) At the applicable time specified in Appendix C of Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC–92K9145, Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, except as provided by Appendix D of Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC–92K9145, Revision N, dated June 13, 2014.
(ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD install a TDG Aerospace Inc. UFI using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
TDG Aerospace STC ST02502LA (
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or (k)(1)(iii) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(i) McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–53, dated April 8, 1991.
(ii) McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, dated, June 14, 1991.
(iii) McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, Revision 1, dated July 19, 1991.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, dated September 27, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, dated September 27, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2012–18–05, Amendment 39–17181 (77 FR 54793, September 6, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sérj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5254; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD80–28–228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90–28–013, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015.
(iii) Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC–92K9145, Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, including Appendices A through D.
(iv) McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–53, Revision 1, dated April 16, 1992.
(v) McDonnell Douglas MD–80 Service Bulletin 28–63, Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206–766–5683; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies jet routes J–6, J–97, and J–222, and VOR Federal airways V–196, and V–489, in the northeastern United States due to the planned decommissioning of the Plattsburgh, NY, VORTAC facility. These route changes enhance the safety and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the northeast United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
On September 14, 2015, the FAA published in the
Both commenters agreed with the proposal; however, one individual wrote that the V–196 and V–489 modifications should be delayed for one year after the relocation of the jet routes to provide pilots with backup. The FAA finds it is not possible to delay the modifications to V–196 and V–489 because the cancelled segments of those airways are based on the Plattsburgh VORTAC, which is being commissioned.
Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 and VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the descriptions of jet routes J–6, J–97 and J–222; and VOR Federal airways V–196 and V–489, due to the planned decommissioning of the Plattsburgh VORTAC in New York. The jet routes and VOR Federal airways are being modified as follows:
J–6 Jet route J–6 is terminated on the east end at Albany, NY. The segment between Albany and Plattsburgh, NY is removed.
J–97 Jet route J–97 is terminated at Boston, MA, removing the segment between Boston and Plattsburgh.
J–222 Jet route J–222 is terminated at Cambridge, NY, removing the segment between Cambridge and Plattsburgh.
V–196 Federal airway V–196 is terminated at the intersection of the Saranac Lake, NY, 058°(T) and the Burlington, VT 296°(T) radials, removing the segment between that intersection and Plattsburgh.
V–489 Federal airway V–489 is terminated at Glens Falls, NY, removing the segment between Glens Falls and Plattsburgh.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Salinas, CA, via INT Salinas 145° and Avenal, CA, 292° radials; Avenal; INT Avenal 119° and Palmdale, CA, 310° radials; Palmdale; Hector, CA; Needles, CA; Drake, AZ; Zuni, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Panhandle, TX; Will Rogers, OK; Little Rock, AR; Bowling Green, KY; Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 076° and Martinsburg,
From lat. 39°07′00″ N., long. 67°00′00″ W. via Nantucket, MA; to Boston, MA.
From Robbinsville, NJ; INT Robbinsville 039° and Kennedy, NY, 253° radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 022° and Cambridge, NY, 179° radials; to Cambridge.
From Utica, NY, Saranac Lake, NY; to INT Saranac Lake 058° and Burlington, VT 296° radials.
From INT Sparta, NJ, 300° and Huguenot, NY, 196° radials; Huguenot; INT Huguenot 008° and Albany, NY, 209° radials; Albany; to Glens Falls, NY.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace in the International Falls, MN, area to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This action enhances the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Effective 0901 UTC, May 26, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222–5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace in the International Falls, MN, area.
On August 27, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E Domestic en Route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface in the International Falls, MN area, to contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations within the confines of Minneapolis ARTCC airspace.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5–6.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 095°00′00″ W.; to lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 093°30′00″ W.; to lat. 48°06′30″ N., long. 090°06′00″ W.; to lat. 47°53′00″ N., long. 090°55′00″ W.; to lat. 48°34′00″ N., long. 094°00′00″ W.; to lat. 48°40′00″ N., long. 095°00′00″ W., thence to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace within Federal airways and within Canadian airspace.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at Kearney, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform structural repairs at the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on February 26, 2016 to 5 a.m. on February 28, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0099] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514–4336, email
The Amtrak Portal Bridge across Hackensack River, at Kearney, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 23 feet at mean high water and 28 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.723(e).
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes. There is one sewage facility upstream of the bridge that transits the bridge twice a week.
The bridge owner, AMTRAK, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the Amtrak Portal railroad bridge shall remain in the closed position from 10 p.m. on February 26, 2016 to 5 a.m. February 28, 2016.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for underwater detonation operations in the waters of Apra Outer Harbor in Piti, Guam. This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on February 19, 2016. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone regulation is necessary to protect all persons and vessels that would otherwise transit or be within the affected area from possible safety hazards associated with underwater detonation operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam.
This rule is effective from 10 a.m. through 4 p.m. on February 19, 2016.
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 Chief Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; (671) 355–4866,
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard received notice of this operation on December 10, 2015, only 71 days before the operation is scheduled. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have time to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by February 19, 2016.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the U.S. Navy training exercise which include detonation of underwater explosives on February 19, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700-yard radius on the surface and 1400-yard radius underwater of the operation. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the exercise. Mariners and divers approaching too close to such exercises could potentially expose the mariner to flying debris or other hazardous conditions.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 a.m. through 4 p.m. on February 19, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 700 yards on the surface and 1400 yards underwater of vessels and machinery being used by Navy. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the underwater detonation exercise. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Apra Outer Harbor in Piti, GU, for 6 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 E.O. 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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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
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.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 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 a safety zone lasting 6 hours that will prohibit entry within 700 yards on the surface and 1400 underwater of vessels and machinery being used by Navy personnel. It 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
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the Governor of New Mexico for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on March 18, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0431. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tracie Donaldson, 214–665–6633,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 12, 2015 Proposal (80 FR 69925). In that notice, we proposed that the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New Mexico i-SIP submittal for the 2010 SO
We received one comment, which is posted in the docket, but is not relevant to the subject of this rulemaking.
We are approving the June 11, 2015 i-SIP submission from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New Mexico, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide (SO
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. The revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
This direct final rule will be effective April 18, 2016, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 18, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0045, to
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7039, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
The State of Iowa has requested EPA approval of revisions to the local agency's rules and regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution, as a revision to the SIP. In order for the local program's Air Pollution rules to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, on behalf of the local agency, the state must submit the formally adopted regulations and control strategies, which are consistent with the state and Federal requirements, to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The regulation adoption process generally includes public notice, a public comment period and a public hearing, and formal adoption of the rule by the state authorized rulemaking body. In this case, that rulemaking body is the local agency. After the local agency formally adopts the rule, the local agency submits the rulemaking to the state, and then the state submits the rulemaking to EPA for consideration for formal action (inclusion of the rulemaking into the SIP). EPA must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state's submission.
EPA received the request from the state to adopt revisions to the local air agency rules into the SIP on December 8, 2015. The revisions were adopted by the local agency on October 6, 2015, and became effective on October 12, 2015. EPA is approving the requested revisions to the Iowa SIP relating to the following:
• Article I. In General, Section 5–1. Purpose and Ambient Air Quality Standards;
• Article I. In General, Section 5–2. Definitions;
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction Permits, Section 5–33. Exemptions from Permit Requirements;
• Article X. Permits, Division 2. Operating Permits, Section 5–39. Exemptions from Permit Requirement.
• Article VI. Emission of Air Contaminants from Industrial Processes, New Source Performance Standards, Section 5–16(n),
• Article VIII. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, Section 5–16(p), and,
• Article VIII. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, Section 5–20.
EPA is also approving the definition of Maximum Achievable Control Technology that was inadvertently omitted from the January 12, 2015,
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied
We are taking direct final action to approve the revisions to the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. The local agency routinely revises its Air Pollution regulations to be consistent with the Federally-approved Iowa Administrative Code.
The local agency's Air Pollution rules are consistent with state and Federal regulations and are revised as follows:
Article I, section 5–1(c) is revised to cite the cross reference to state-approved rules at (455B). The definition “Responsible official” was added to article I, section 5–2, the definition for “Volatile Organic Compounds” was revised to cite the most recent federal reference.
Article X, division 1, Construction Permits, section 5–33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, and article X, division 2, Operating Permits, section 5–39, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, were revised to add an introductory paragraph stating that the permitting exemptions of these sections do not relieve the owner or operator of any source from any obligation to comply with any other applicable requirements.
Article X, division 1, Construction Permits, section 5–33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, and article X, division 2, Operating Permits, section 5–39, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, were revised to add recordkeeping requirements to the exemption for electric hand soldering, wave soldering and electric solder paste reflow ovens, and the exemption for emissions from mobile internal combustion engines at equipment repair shops or equipment dealerships was revised to add emissions from over-the-road trucks.
Article X, division 1, Construction Permits, section 5–33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, and article X, division 2, Operating Permits, section 5–39, Exemptions from Permit Requirements, were revised to add three additional exemptions as follows: Equipment that is not related to the production of goods or services and used exclusively for academic purposes, located at educational institutions as defined in Iowa Code section 455B.161; any container, storage tank, or vessel that contains fluid having a maximum true vapor pressure of less than 0.75 psia, and fugitive dust emissions related to movement of passenger vehicles on unpaved road surfaces. Details of the three additional exemptions and other Polk County revisions can be found in the Technical Support Document in the docket of this rulemaking.
With this SIP action, EPA is also approving the definition of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). The MACT definition was included in the September 2013 SIP submission for Polk County; however, EPA inadvertently omitted the definition from the
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment because the revisions are largely administrative and consistent with Federal regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Iowa Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the Governor of New Mexico for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
This final rule is effective on March 18, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0613. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tracie Donaldson, 214–665–6633,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our December 2, 2015 proposal (80 FR 75444). In that document, we proposed that the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New Mexico i-SIP submittal for the 2010 NO
We are approving the July 26, 2013 i-SIP submission from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New Mexico, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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).
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 April 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide (NO
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of fluridone in or on cotton, undelinted seed. SePRO Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 17, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 18, 2016, 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–2014–0913, is 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–2014–0913 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 April 18, 2016. 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–2014–0913, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
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 fluridone including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluridone follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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. The liver and kidneys were identified as the primary target organs based on a multitude of organ specific effects noted across the toxicity database. All model species exhibited indications of liver toxicity that were often accompanied by body weight effects. Mice were the most sensitive species examined, and dogs were the most tolerant. Rat sensitivity was comparable (chronic exposure) to or slightly less (subchronic exposure) than mice; however, rats were the only species to exhibit minor kidney effects in addition to liver and body weight toxicity. Progression of toxicity from subchronic to chronic exposures was not observed in mice and was limited (2-fold difference) in rats. No evidence of fetal sensitivity was observed in rats or rabbits. Body weight effects in the F
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluridone as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
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
The 2-year mouse study was used for the residential points of departures (PODs) for short- and intermediate-term incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposure. The mouse chronic endpoint was considered appropriate for short-and intermediate-term fluridone exposures because mice were the most sensitive species and there was no progression of toxicity from subchronic to chronic exposure.
The guideline dermal study was not used to set endpoints for the dermal assessment, because the study did not address concerns for the possible sensitivity in the young observed in the 3-generation reproduction study. The systemic NOAEL from the dermal study is 384 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), but there is equivocal, yet suggestive evidence of offspring toxicity at 112 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL from the 2-year mouse cancer study is 38.5 mg/kg/day after accounting for route-to-route extrapolation (dermal absorption factor of 39%) and is therefore protective of the equivocal offspring effects. The chronic mouse oral
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluridone used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluridone for acute exposures are estimated to be 24 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 34 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures they are estimated to be 21 ppb for surface water and 32 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 34 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 32 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Fluridone is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: From use on ponds (including a homeowner use), lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Adult applicators may be exposed (dermal and inhalation) while applying the pesticide to residential ponds. Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-term in duration only. Intermediate-term and chronic exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. There is also potential for residential post-application exposure (dermal, inhalation and incidental ingestion) for adults and children (3 to <6 years old) swimming in treated water. Residential post-application exposure is expected to be short term in duration only.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found fluridone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluridone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluridone 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 fluridone is complete. Though EPA relied on an oral study to assess inhalation exposures, a subchronic inhalation study is not required based on a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach that considered the physical/chemical properties of fluridone including low vapor pressure, low acute inhalation toxicity, and the large short- and intermediate-term inhalation MOEs calculated.
ii. The combination of behavioral anomalies and impaired physiological and locomotor function in the acute neurotoxicity (ACN) study were suggestive of neurotoxicity following high dose acute exposure. However, the concern for neurotoxicity is low because the adverse effects in the ACN study were only seen at relatively high gavage doses (650–2000 mg/kg/day); there were no corresponding neurohistopathological findings; there were no indications of neurotoxicity in the rest of the toxicity database; and the endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of these adverse effects.
iii. There is no evidence that fluridone results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluridone in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fluridone.
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology [high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (originally submitted as method AM–AA–CA–RO52–AA–755)] is available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II for residues of fluridone in plant commodities, including cotton.
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.
The Codex has not established a MRL for fluridone in cotton.
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of fluridone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-4(1
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 tolerance 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.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule, and the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule. The revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by reducing burdens to industry and EPA, and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the protections provided by the original rules. First, EPA is modifying the requirement that the renovator refresher training for individuals have a hands-on component. Second, the Agency is removing jurisdiction-specific certification and accreditation requirements under the LBP Activities program in States where EPA administers the program. Previously, this program required that training providers, firms and individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (
This final rule is effective February 17, 2016.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number HQ–OPPT–2014–0304, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to conduct lead-based paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This rule applies only in States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323).
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:
• Building construction (NAICS code 236),
• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238),
• Real estate (NAICS code 531),
• Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
• Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
• Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS code 541350),
• Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910),
This final rule is being issued under the authority of Sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).
EPA is making minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the
The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the benefits of the original rules.
EPA has prepared an economic analysis (EA) of the potential incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 3). This analysis, which is available in the docket, is discussed in more detail in Unit III. The following is a brief outline of the estimated incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
This unit discusses the final rule, including what was proposed and the public comments received on the proposed rule. A separate document that summarizes the comments received that were relevant to the proposal and EPA's responses has been prepared and is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).
To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain initial certification, individual renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. People who had taken an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course could take the 4-hour refresher renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). E-learning is a web-based training that is not lead by an instructor where the student can take the training at his or her own pace. Requirements specific to e-learning are found at 40 CFR 745.225. To maintain certification, renovators must complete a renovator refresher course before their certification expires. If the renovator does not complete the course within the required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified again.
The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing for lead in paint, methods for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, and determining that the work area has been adequately cleaned. Each student performs these activities in front of an instructor who determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be deemed proficient in order to pass the class and become a certified renovator. The current version of the renovator refresher course includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification.
On January 15, 2015, EPA proposed to eliminate the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher course. Over 140 comments on its proposal were received. Comments both supported and opposed the proposed change. After carefully weighing the issues at stake and considering the concerns raised by commenters, the Agency is promulgating a modified version of the proposal. Specifically, EPA will allow renovators to take a refresher course without hands-on training once every other certification. Once a renovator takes the refresher course without the hands-on training, their next refresher training must include hands-on training. The certification from the refresher course without hands-on training will last for 3 years. Taking the course without hands-on training is optional but once a renovator takes the course, their next refresher course must include hands-on training and be taken within 3 years of their previous certification. The certification from taking a course with hands-on training will last for 5 years.
Many commenters stated that allowing the refresher course to be taught entirely via e-learning would result in more trained contractors. One commenter stated the e-learning course would allow for wider adoption of the rule resulting in higher compliance. Another commenter stated that this will benefit homeowners by having more trained renovators in the field. One commenter who is in favor of e-learning training stated that when he took his initial renovator training, he spent 2 days traveling to and from the training and another day taking the class. E-learning training would have saved this person travel costs and time away from work. EPA agrees that a refresher training taught entirely online via e-learning would result in more renovators taking the training. Without the hands-on requirement, renovators seeking recertification would be able to take the course entirely via e-learning without having to travel to a training location to perform the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators will save time and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. Although the e-learning training will only be allowed for every other refresher
Many commenters believe that an in-class course provides better training than an e-learning course. One commenter stated that students learn more when they can interact with other students and share information. Many commenters stated that students learn better by performing hands-on activities. One commenter stated that it is important for students to practice what they learn and get immediate feedback from instructors. Another commenter stated that people who work with their hands, such as renovators, learn better from doing rather than watching. While EPA believes that renovators can sufficiently learn the RRP requirements via e-learning training, the Agency understands the commenters' concerns about students missing out on potential benefits of hands-on training and interaction with trainers and students when they take an e-learning course. These concerns are another reason EPA shortened the certification period for the renovator course that does not include hands-on training to 3 years and required in-class training every other certification. This way, renovators who may learn more in a classroom setting will not be able to take the e-learning course perpetually without ever having classroom refresher training. Further, they will have to take the in-class training sooner, after only 3 years from when they completed the e-learning course.
Many commenters were concerned that training providers would have difficulty verifying the identity of the person taking the course. One commenter stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to verify that the person taking the training is, in fact, the individual who receives certification. Another commenter pointed out that a classroom-based course reduces the potential for misrepresentation and fraud that can take place in an online learning situation. As one training provider explained, there are measures that it takes to verify student identity in an e-learning course but admitted that there is no guarantee that the person taking the course is who they claim to be. Several commenters suggested possible solutions, such as tracking IP addresses or taking a picture of the student without notice to verify their identity. These commenters' suggestions, as well as others, do not appear to be practical methods to verify student identity. EPA has already employed more practical methods of verifying student participation when accrediting a training program to offer these refresher training courses for renovation: Each student is assigned a unique identifier to launch and re-launch the course, each student completes periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and content of those in EPA's model course, and each student is tested with at least 20 questions and scores at least 80% for successful completion. EPA recognizes the possibility that someone could have another person take the course for him or her; however, there are potential penalties for those who do this. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a criminal violation to knowingly and willfully make a false or fraudulent statement in any matter within EPA's jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a renovator is tempted to have someone else take the course for them, they will know that they will have to take the course in person for their next certification, ensuring that their identity can be verified, because the e-learning course can only be taken once every other certification.
EPA understands that there may be disadvantages to e-learning training. However, the Agency expects that the associated burden and cost savings of the rule will lead to more renovators taking the refresher training and becoming recertified than would have done so otherwise. The Agency believes the benefits of having more renovators take the refresher training, leading to a higher number of certified renovators, will outweigh any disadvantages of the final rule.
On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the LBP Activities requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that provide training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered by the EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in which the applicant seeks certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA-administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes without authorized programs in a given EPA Region.
The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff to perform tasks associated with adding jurisdictions to a certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information into a database, approving or disapproving the application and generating and mailing a certificate to the applicant. After years of implementing the LBP Activities Program, the Agency believes that separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit the same applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered State. Accordingly, the Agency is eliminating the requirement for separate certifications in each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the LBP Activities Program. Regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administered State jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Now when a regulated entity applies to EPA and receives certification in the LBP Activities Program, they will be able to work in any EPA-administered State.
EPA received many comments on its proposal to remove jurisdictions from the LBP Activities Program. Most comments were in support of eliminating jurisdictions. Commenters who opposed the proposed removal were confused about what EPA was proposing, believing that the Agency was going to change the requirements for States to become authorized to implement the LBP Activities Program. The Agency is not changing the State authorization requirements, nor did it propose to do so. EPA is promulgating the revisions as proposed by eliminating jurisdictions in the LBP Activities Program administered by EPA.
Now that jurisdictions in EPA's LBP Activities Program have been removed, firms, individuals and training providers will receive one certificate that will allow them to work in all EPA-administered States instead of one certificate per State. Certificates issued before this final rule are still valid until their expiration and regulated entities will not need their certificates replaced
EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited training providers under the RRP rule (Ref. 1) and LBP Activities rule (Ref. 2). It was brought to the Agency's attention that the regulations did not specifically state what constituted a violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For example, some other regulatory provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list various activities that are considered a violation of TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency proposed to add clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the requirements in that section. EPA believes that accredited training providers already understand this, but EPA proposed to add the clarifying language to ensure understanding of the requirements—similar to what has been done in other regulations. This clarifying language does not change any requirements for accredited training providers.
The Agency received few comments on the clarification. Most of the comments expressed general support for the proposed change. One commenter said that the current requirements are specific and the clarification is not necessary. EPA disagrees with this comment. The language in 40 CFR 745.225 did not specifically say that a failure to follow the requirements of that section was a violation. While it is likely that many training providers already understand that, EPA believes it is important to make it clear in the regulations in order to eliminate any confusion about what constitutes a violation. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the changes as proposed by adding the clarifying language to 40 CFR 745.225.
The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently omitted a requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important information regarding certified renovators for EPA's compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, EPA issued a rule (Ref. 6) to correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample post-course notification form and to make it clear that all methods of post-course notification are available to both renovation training providers and LBP Activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) required renovation training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the regulatory provision was subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 2011 rule (Ref. 7), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text that was added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In January 2015, EPA proposed to add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule.
EPA received several comments about the correction to the notification regulations. Two commenters said they had no objection to the correction. Another commenter said simply that he supported the proposed change. No commenters opposed making the correction. EPA is promulgating the revision as proposed.
As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the requirements regarding online training notifications by requiring training providers that teach the e-learning refresher course to submit notifications via the internet. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting notifications electronically via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). The CDX system is designed to streamline the notification process for training providers and EPA alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic submissions that reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper. Submitting notification via the internet reduces the burden on the training providers and the Agency, as well as saving taxpayer dollars.
The Agency requested comment on whether it should require training providers to submit online notifications for the refresher course that does not include hands-on training. EPA received one comment submitted by a training provider who supported the requirement. No commenters opposed the change. Based on the benefits of online notifications, EPA is promulgating a requirement that training providers that teach the renovator refresher course without hands-on training must submit their post-training notifications via the internet. Most, if not all, of the refresher courses without hands-on training will be taught via e-learning since there will be no need for students to take the course in person. EPA believes that trainers who teach an e-learning course clearly have the technical knowledge and ability to submit their post-training notifications via the internet and it is therefore appropriate to promulgate this requirement. As stated later in this Unit, these trainers will not have to submit pre-training notifications; therefore, this requirement only applies to post-training notifications.
EPA also requested comment on how it should modify the notification requirements to accommodate training taught entirely via e-learning. Training providers submit both a pre-training and post-training notification for each course that they teach. Now that the renovator refresher training can be taught entirely online via e-learning, there will be no classroom session for which to notify EPA for the e-learning class. Consequently, pre-training notifications will not be required for such courses. Because the training provider will still need to send to EPA the names of the students who completed the e-learning course, post-training notifications are still required.
EPA received several comments regarding how it should modify the post-training notification requirements. One commenter said that EPA should be notified as soon as the student completes the course. Another commenter stated that post-training notifications should be sent quarterly, or at most monthly. EPA believes that submitting notifications at the time the student finishes the course would be too burdensome for training providers. Furthermore, it is not necessary for student information to be submitted the same day the course is completed. On the other hand, with quarterly notifications, information for some students would not be submitted to EPA for almost three months after the training was completed. There are times when EPA uses the information from notifications to verify whether a certain person is a certified renovator. A delay of three months increases the likelihood of this information not being available when the Agency needs it. As a compromise, and as one of the commenters suggested, the Agency is requiring the notifications to be
The Agency is requiring training providers that teach the refresher training entirely online via e-learning to include the expiration of the renovator's certification in the post-training notification. Now that renovator certifications can be either 3 or 5 years, it is important to have the expiration date on the notification so EPA can tell when the renovator's certification expires and whether he or she took the course that is taught entirely online via e-learning. The Agency is also requiring course completion certificates for all renovator courses to include the expiration of the certification. Because of the two different certification timeframes, it is important for the certificate to clearly state when the certification expires. This information may be of help to various parties including homeowners and training providers. Homeowners may want to verify that the certified renovators working in their homes are currently certified. Training providers who teach the refresher training are required to verify whether the student is eligible to take the refresher training which would be difficult to do without knowing when the renovator's certification expires.
In the 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 1), EPA created a grandfather provision that allowed renovators who have taken an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course, to take the 4-hour refresher renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course to receive their initial certification. In a subsequent rulemaking, the regulations were changed (Ref. 7) to allow renovators to take advantage of the provision only if they had taken the prerequisite course before October 4, 2011. Now that the Agency is allowing a refresher course that does not have a hands-on requirement, the grandfather provision would have allowed a student to receive initial renovator certification by taking an e-learning refresher course that does not have hands-on training. EPA received several comments about the grandfather provision. Commenters were concerned that, under the proposal, renovators would be able to take the refresher course without hands-on training as their initial renovator training.
EPA believes that it is important for renovators to have hands-on training when they receive their initial certification. To address commenters' concerns, EPA will ensure that all renovators have hands-on training when they get their initial certification, by requiring renovators who take advantage of the grandfather provision to take a refresher training that includes hands-on training. Therefore, only renovators that have received their initial certification under the RRP program may take the renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on training.
EPA's economic analysis of the potential costs and savings associated with this action (Ref. 3), is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in this Unit.
The rule amendments do not preempt regulations by states, territories, or tribal governments that have their own authorized lead programs, so these estimates only reflect changes in EPA-administered jurisdictions.
Over 500,000 renovators have been trained and certified under the federal RRP program since renovator training became mandatory in 2010. Since a large number of renovators received their initial certification in the first year of the program, there will be some initial cyclicality in the annual number of renovators recertified. However, this cyclicality will decrease over time as trained renovators exit the industry and are replaced by new entrants. EPA's analysis makes the simplifying assumptions that under the existing regulation (where all refresher training is valid for 5 years) there will be a steady state average of 100,000 renovators per year with expiring certifications, and 30,000 renovators per year will leave the industry and be replaced by new entrants who must take the initial training course. So an average of 70,000 renovators per year would take the refresher course in the baseline.
In the baseline, both initial and refresher renovator training must have a hands-on component, and renovator certification and recertification are both valid for 5 years. EPA considered several options for revising the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training. The options differed in terms of the length of time for which recertification based on refresher training without a hands-on component would be valid, as well as the number of training cycles in which hands-on refresher training would have to be taken (
Allowing refresher training to be taught without the hands-on component will reduce costs for training providers because they will no longer have to purchase the supplies required for hands-on training. As a result, the average cost per student of providing such a course is expected to be $45 less than the baseline cost. Some or all of these savings may be passed on to the students in the form of lower tuition.
Refresher training without a hands-on component can be taken entirely online via e-learning. Most training providers currently offering the classroom portion of a renovator training course online charge the same tuition whether the class is taken in person or online, suggesting that the costs of providing e-learning and in-person training are similar. But renovators taking a course entirely via e-learning will avoid the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site, at an average savings of $144 per person.
Due to the cost savings, as many as 400 training providers might offer refresher training via e-learning if the hands-on requirement is revised, and many renovators will take their training via e-learning. But some renovators will still choose to take their training in person even when they are eligible for an e-learning class. EPA considered three different scenarios for how renovators might respond if the hands-on requirement is modified, assuming that 50%, 75%, or 90% of renovators would choose to take their training online if they are allowed to do so. This means that at least 10%, 25%, or 50% of renovators would choose to take all of their training in person under each option. And under Options 2 and 4, renovators who chose to take training without a hands-on component would have to take hands-on training in a subsequent training cycle. So under these options, the number of renovators being trained in person in any given year exceeds 10%, 25%, or 50% of the total number of renovators trained that year. Table 2, lists the annual number of renovators trained under each option. To simplify the analysis, renovators are assumed to take training without a hands-on component via e-learning, although the rule would also allow such training to be taken in person. The range in the results for each option reflects the different scenarios for the number of renovators electing to take e-learning training.
The rule amendments also change the notification requirements for training courses. Post-training notifications will have to include the expiration date for each renovator's certification, but it takes a negligible effort for the training provider to submit this information. Training providers will not be required to submit pre-notifications for e-learning courses that have no in-person component, which will reduce the total number of submissions by between 4,000 and 7,000 per year. The amendments also allow training providers to submit post-notifications once a month for e-learning courses that have no in-person component, instead of no later than ten business days following course completion. Such monthly notifications would have to be submitted though EPA's CDX system, but approximately 92% of notifications are already submitted via CDX. Assuming that 400 training providers offer e-learning refresher training, up to 4,800 post-training notifications could be submitted for e-learning training each year. This is a reduction compared to the number of post-training notifications that would be submitted if the amendments did not allow monthly reporting for e-learning training, and it is partially offset by a reduction in the number of post-training notifications for in-person classes.
And the rule removes the $35 multi-jurisdiction registration fee that individuals, firms, and training providers currently pay when they apply to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training for that program in additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. In a typical year, these entities apply to work in a total of 431 additional jurisdictions.
The rule requires training providers to include the expiration date of the renovator's certification in the post-training notification, but the time required to do this is negligible. The rule also clarifies the requirements for the time-frame to submit post-training notifications for in-person training courses. The burden and cost of this activity were already accounted for in previous economic analyses and ICRs for the lead program, and are not repeated here in order to avoid double-counting these costs. Another revision adds clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the regulations. This does not affect the estimated cost of compliance because it does not change any requirements for accredited training providers.
Table 3, presents the total cost savings of the rule options, including modifying the notification requirements for training providers, and removing the multi-jurisdiction fee. The final rule, which is Option 4(c), is estimated to result in cost savings of $1.8 million to $3.4 million per year (in 2014 dollars). The rule reduces the cost of providing and taking refresher training enough that compliance costs decrease even though reducing the certification period to 3 years for renovators taking refresher training without a hands-on component is projected to increase the total number of renovators trained per year.
Cost savings for all options reflect revisions to the renovator refresher training requirements, changes to the pre- and post-training notifications, and the removal of the multi-jurisdiction registration fee. Recertification based on refresher training with a hands-on component is valid for 5 years under all of the options.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule.
3. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments Final Rule (Economic Analysis). October 2015.
4. EPA. Response to Public Comments; Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements Rulemaking. October 2015.
5. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule.
6. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
7. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.02 and OMB No. 2070–0192. October 2015.
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866, October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51735) and 13563, January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations are documented in the docket.
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential cost savings associated with this action (Ref. 3), which is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in Unit III.
The information collection requirements in this rule have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
Eliminating multi-jurisdiction registration fees saves money for entities that wish to perform LBP activities in multiple jurisdictions. The rule also allows training providers (many of which are small businesses) additional flexibility in how they offer training. E-learning training is already allowed for the classroom component of both initial and refresher training, and training providers can choose whether or not to offer it. The amended rule still allows training providers to choose what type of training to offer because they can continue to offer refresher training with a hands-on component, begin offering e-learning training without the hands-on component, or offer both types of training.
Training providers that voluntarily choose to start offering e-learning refresher training without a hands-on component would incur costs for some activities (
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule amendments do not preempt regulations by states, territories, or tribal governments that have their own authorized lead programs, so those jurisdictions are not required to change their programs.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249). The rule amendments do not preempt regulations by tribal governments that have their own authorized lead programs, so those jurisdictions are not required to adopt these amendments. Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur costs for some activities (such as applying for a new accreditation) but they would reduce other expenses (such as supplies for the hands-on training). However, there is no requirement mandating that training providers offer an e-learning refresher course. So training providers will not choose to offer e-learning training unless the savings of doing so exceed the costs, or if they can recover their costs through tuition charges or other means. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Furthermore, the requirements in the lead program will continue to protect children, since renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component will only be valid for 3 years; and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice requirements for renovation, repair or painting activities that disturb lead-based paint.
This action is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211, May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28355), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This rule does not involve technical standards and is therefore not subject to considerations under section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations as specified in Executive Order 12898, February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629). This action does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, or individuals who successfully completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD model renovation training course before October 4, 2011 may take an accredited refresher renovator training course that includes hands-on training in lieu of the initial renovator training course to become a certified renovator.
(4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling technician refresher course accredited by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals who complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program on or before March 31, 2010, must complete a renovator refresher course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program on or before March 31, 2016, to maintain renovator certification. Individuals who completed a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year added to their original 5-year certification. Individuals who take a renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on training will be certified for 3 years from the date they complete the training. Individuals who take a refresher training course that includes hands-on training will be certified for 5 years. Individuals who take the renovator refresher without hands-on training must, for their next refresher course, take a refresher course that includes hands-on training to maintain renovator certification.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and principal instructors must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents issued to training programs.
(c)
(8) * * *
(viii) For renovator course completion certificates, the expiration date of certification.
(13) * * *
(i) The training manager must provide EPA with notification of all renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered except for any renovator course without hands-on training delivered via electronic learning. The original notification must be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start date of any renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities course.
(14) * * *
(i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint activities course. This notification must be received by EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. Notifications for any e-learning renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on training must be submitted via the Central Data Exchange no later than the 10th day of the month and include all students trained in the previous month.
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(d)
(e)
(2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for
(3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment. With the exception of project designer courses, the training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the course. Renovators must take a refresher course that includes hands-on training at least every other recertification.
(4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher course concurrently with its application for accreditation of the corresponding training course as described in paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure described in paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the minimum requirements contained in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5), (c)(6)(viii) and (c)(7) through (14), and (e)(1) through (3) of this section shall also apply.
(5) * * *
(viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5), (c)(6)(viii) and (c)(7) through (14) of this section apply to refresher training providers.
The amendments read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1)
(2)
(e) * * *
(2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
This document replaces an erroneous effective date and corrects typographical errors in a summary of the above-captioned order that was published at 81 FR 5605.
Effective March 4, 2016.
Michael Ray, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418–0357, or send an email to
This correction amends the Agency Docket Number, Effective Date, and Supplementary Information published on February 3, 2016, at 81 FR 5605, in the summary of the Federal Communication Commission's
In FR Rule Document No. 2016–01182, appearing on page 5605 in the February 3, 2016, issue of the
1. On page 5605, in the center column, revise the Agency Docket Number to read “GN Docket No. 09–51; WC Docket No. 07–245; FCC 15–151”.
2. On page 5605, in the center column, in the
3. On page 5606, in the left column, in line 18 revise “0.66 percent” to read “66 percent” and on line 19 revise “0.44 percent” to read “44 percent.”,
4. On page 5606, in paragraph 3 in the left column, in line 5, revise “0.31 percent” to read “31 percent” and in lines 6 and 7 revise “0.56 percent” to read “56 percent.”
5. On page 5608, in the left column, in line 8 revise “0.66 percent” and “.044 percent” to read “66 percent” and “44 percent,” respectively.
6. On page 5608, in the left column, in paragraph 19, in lines 7 and 8 revise “0.31 percent” and “0.56 percent” to read “31 percent” and “56 percent,” respectively.
7. On page 5613, in the left column, in paragraph 52, in lines 15 and 16 revise “0.66 percent” and “0.44 percent” to read “66 percent” and “44 percent,” respectively.
8. On page 5613, in the last two lines in the left column and first line in the center column, revise “0.31 percent” and “0.56 percent” to read “31 percent” and “56 percent,” respectively.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with certain of the provision of the rules adopted as part of the Commission's
The amendments to §§ 54.201, 54.400, 54.401, 54.404, 54.407, 54.410, and 54.417, published at 80 FR 40923, July 14, 2015, are effective February 17, 2016.
Christian Hoefly, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–3607 or TTY: (202) 418–0484.
This document announces that, on January 5, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request material in accessible formation for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 5, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 54.
Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0819.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Total Annual Cost: None.
Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is issuing a final rule to insert language that was inadvertently omitted when an amended rule was promulgated on September 5, 2013. This decision is effective on its date of publication.
This rule is effective on February 17, 2016.
Amy C. Ziehm at (202) 245–0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
On September 5, 2013, the Board, with Vice Chairman Begeman dissenting, adopted final rules that established additional disclosure requirements for notices and petitions for exemption where the underlying lease or line sale includes an interchange commitment.
The 2013 Final Rules' addition of a requirement to certify the existence of any interchange commitments was intended to apply to all notices and petitions for exemption involving transactions where the underlying lease or line sale could include an interchange commitment. 2013 Final Rules 1, 3. The Board included such language in the amended versions of 1121.3(d)(1), 1150.33(h)(1), and 1150.43(h)(1). Due to an oversight, however, the introductory language of 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(4)(i) was not modified. This inadvertent error will now be addressed by amending 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(4)(i). Specifically, 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(4)(i) will now state that the filing party must certify whether or not a proposed acquisition or operation of a rail line involves a provision or agreement that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier, whether by outright prohibition, per-car penalty, adjustment in the purchase price or rental, positive
As this action relates solely to the rules of agency practice and procedure, it will be issued as a final rule without requesting public comment.
In the 2013 Final Rules, the Board certified that the rules as amended would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 2013 Final Rules 8. The Board further analyzed the burdens associated with the additional filing requirements pursuant to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3549 and stated its belief that the additional disclosure requirements would not discourage parties from entering into efficiency-enhancing transactions.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
1. The Board adopts the final rule as set forth in this decision. Notice of the adopted rules will be published in the
2. This decision is effective on the date of publication.
By the Board, Chairman Elliot, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begman.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board amends part 1180 title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 11 U.S.C. 1172; 49 U.S.C. 721, 10502, 11323–11325.
(g) * * *
(4)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that had the effect of vacating provisions of regulations governing eagle nonpurposeful take permits that extended the maximum term of programmatic permits to 30 years. Pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's order dated August 11, 2015, and subsequent order amending judgment dated September 16, 2015, this rule removes regulatory provisions that extended maximum programmatic permit duration1 to 30 years and reinstates the previous 5-year limit.
This action is effective February 17, 2016.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Eliza Savage, Eagle Program Manager, at the Headquarters Office (see
In 2009, the Service published a rule authorizing the incidental take of eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668–668d) (74 FR 46836, September 11, 2009). The rule authorized programmatic permits to cover long-term, incidental take of eagles by individual projects, including wind-energy facilities. On December 9, 2013, the Service published a rule to extend the maximum tenure for programmatic permits for nonpurposeful take of eagles from 5 to 30 years (78 FR 73704). The change was intended to promote the responsible development of projects that will be in operation for many decades and bring them into compliance with statutory mandates protecting eagles. In addition to extending the maximum term of programmatic permits, the rule added provisions for 5-year evaluations of longer term permits, increased the permit application processing fees for programmatic eagle permits, and provided permit transfer and right-of-succession for eagle nonpurposeful take permits.
In 2014, a lawsuit was filed challenging the 2013 rule on the basis that the Service improperly excluded analysis of any environmental effects of the rule under the National
On August 11, 2015, the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the NEPA claim (but not the ESA claim) and set aside the 2013 rulemaking
This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the August 11, 2015, court order and September 16, 2015, clarification. Therefore, under these circumstances, we have determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are impractical and unnecessary. Public opportunity for comment is simply not required when an agency amends a regulation to comply with a court order. When an agency removes regulatory provisions set aside by a court order, that action is ministerial in nature and allows for no discretion on the part of the agency. Thus, public comment could not inform this process in any meaningful way. Moreover, this amendment will effectively reinstate provisions that were part of the earlier 2009 rulemaking, which complied with public notice and comment rulemaking procedures, rendering further notice and comment on those reinstated provisions unnecessary. We have further determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that the agency has good cause to make this rule effective upon publication, which is to comply with the District Court's order as soon as practicable.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Birds, Exports, Imports, Migratory birds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
To comply with the court order and mandate discussed above, we amend subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j–l, 1374(g), 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901–4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
16 U.S.C. 668–668d; 16 U.S.C. 703–712; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544.
(h)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Direct final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the revised taxonomy of eight wildlife species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are revising the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to reflect the current scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature of these species.
This rule is effective May 17, 2016 without further action, unless significant adverse comment is received by March 18, 2016. If significant adverse comment is received regarding taxonomic changes for any of these species, we will publish in the
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
See Public Comments, below, for more information about submitting comments.
Marilet Zablan, Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, Ecological Services, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232; telephone 503–231–6131. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8337 for TTY (telephone typewriter or teletypewriter) assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The purpose of this direct final rule is to notify the public that we are revising the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.11(h) (50 CFR 17.11(h)) to reflect the scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature of eight wildlife species listed under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposal because this is a noncontroversial action that is in the best interest of the public and should be undertaken in as timely a manner as possible. This rule will be effective, as published in this document, on the effective date specified in
If we receive significant adverse comments regarding the taxonomic changes for any of these species, we will publish a document in the
You may submit your comments and materials regarding this direct final rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post all comments on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing this direct final rule, will be available for public inspection on the Internet at
50 CFR 17.11(b) and 17.12(b) direct us to use the most recently accepted scientific name of any wildlife or plant
We make these changes to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to reflect the most recently accepted scientific names in accordance with 50 CFR 17.11(b). As revised, the common names omit Hawaiian orthographic characters and parenthetical descriptors of bird groups (
Of the species that are the subjects of this rule, only the Oahu elepaio (
The Newell's Manx shearwater (
Subsequently the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) (1983, pp. 24–25) restricted the Manx shearwater to the North Atlantic and Mediterranean forms, recognizing
The Hawaiian and Revillagigedo Islands populations differ substantially from one another in their plumage (Howell
The elepaios are a group of three forest songbird species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. The forms on Hawaii, Oahu, and Kauai were originally described as separate species (
The three island forms of elepaio differ substantially in their vocalizations (VanderWerf 2007) and their morphology and ecology (Conant
The genus
The AOU (1982, p. 16CC) transferred three additional species to
Olson and James (1988, p. 13) noted that the Kauai akialoa was first described by Wilson in 1889, under the name
The akialoa species classification was rearranged by the AOU (1997, p. 548; 1998, p. 675) to elevate the Hawaii subspecies (
A variety of genetic and morphological data indicates that the genus
Although the akiapolaau remains in the genus
Because the four historically known subspecies of akialoa are now known from fossil evidence to have been sympatric with at least two additional akialoa species, Olson and James (1995, pp. 384–385) and Pratt (2014, pp. 9–10) recommended that they be conservatively treated as full species. Consequently, the AOU has elevated the three subspecies of the greater akialoa to species level: Kauai akialoa (
Plumage differences among the three taxa of nukupuu on Kauai, Oahu, and Maui (
As noted above, the original 1967 listing rule covered only the Kauai nukupuu (32 FR 4001), and a later 1970 rule listed both the Kauai and Maui nukupuu (35 FR 16047). However, the current List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) erroneously describes the listed entity as “nukupuu (honeycreeper)” and “
The Hawaii akepa (
Pratt (2014, p. 10) found that the Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu populations of the akepa were distinct at the species level based on molecular data and differences in plumage and nest placement. Based on this research, the AOU (Chesser
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
A complete list of the referenced materials is available upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16. U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Proposed rule.
The Office of Government Ethics is amending the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch regarding seeking other employment, to conform with interpretive advice, update examples, improve clarity, and make technical corrections. In addition, the proposed amendments implement the statutory notification requirements that apply to individuals required to file public financial disclosure reports under section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 when they negotiate for or have an agreement of future employment or compensation.
Written comments are invited and, in order to ensure consideration, must be received on or before April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, in writing, to OGE on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 3209–AA04, by any of the following methods:
Elaine Newton, Associate Counsel, or Rachel Dowell, Assistant Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005–3917; Telephone: (202) 482–9300; TTY: (800) 877–8339; FAX: (202) 482–9237.
Executive Order 12674, which was issued on April 12, 1989, and later modified by Executive Order 12731 (Executive Order), sets forth basic obligations of public service and enumerates 14 principles of ethical conduct for Government officers and employees. The Executive Order also authorizes the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), in consultation with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to issue “regulations that establish a single, comprehensive, and clear set of executive branch standards of conduct.” On August 7, 1992, OGE published the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, codified at 5 CFR part 2635.
These uniform standards include a recusal requirement in subpart F that applies to employees seeking employment with persons whose financial interests would be directly and predictably affected by particular matters in which the employees participate personally and substantially. Subpart F combines the standards imposed by criminal statute with the standards imposed by the Executive order. In part, subpart F implements 18 U.S.C. 208(a), which requires an employee's recusal from participation in any particular matter that, to the employee's knowledge, will have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of a person with whom the employee is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment. Beyond this statutory requirement, subpart F addresses issues of lack of impartiality that require recusal from any particular matter that affects the financial interests of a prospective employer, even where the employee's actions in seeking employment may fall short of negotiating for employment.
Pursuant to section 402 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Director of OGE is responsible for periodically reviewing and updating the regulations as needed. Accordingly, OGE is proposing to amend subpart F by reorganizing and expounding upon certain existing subpart F provisions, as well as by adding certain new provisions and examples. In addition, the proposed amendments would implement new notification requirements under section 17 of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act), Pub. L. 112–105, 126 Stat. 303, 5 U.S.C. app. 101 note, which apply to employees who file public financial disclosure reports. In formulating this proposed rule, OGE has consulted with DOJ and OPM pursuant to section 201(a) of Executive Order 12674, as modified by Executive Order 12731, and the authorities contained in titles I and IV of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. OGE has also solicited and considered the views of executive branch agency ethics officials.
In addition to the specific changes discussed below, OGE is proposing a number of non-substantive changes. OGE proposes to renumber and reorganize the examples to follow the sequence of the regulations; revise examples for clarity; update legal citations; include references to section 17 of the STOCK Act and new § 2635.607, where applicable; reword language paraphrasing 18 U.S.C. 208(a) to align the regulatory language with the statute; and modernize language by replacing the words “he,” “shall,” and “disqualification.”
OGE proposes to restructure the introductory paragraph for clarity. New subsection (a)(2) clarifies that, with the passage of the STOCK Act, a public filer who negotiates for or has an agreement of future employment or compensation must comply with the requirements in
OGE proposes to add a new example to § 2635.603(a) to clarify that certain volunteer activities are not considered “employment” under this subpart. In the preamble to the final rule, 57 FR 35006, Aug. 7, 1992, OGE discussed the types of volunteer services, such as washing dishes one night a week at a soup kitchen, that do not involve an employment or other specified relationship. Consistent with that discussion, a new example illustrates the types of informal, uncompensated, and non-fiduciary volunteer services that are not considered “employment” under this subpart.
OGE is amending the definition of “seeking employment” in several ways to provide additional clarity. To begin, OGE proposes to delete the exclusion at § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii)(B) and incorporate this provision as a limitation to the recusal obligation in § 2635.604. This makes no substantive change to the regulation. The only effect of the exclusion at § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii)(B) was to limit an employee's recusal obligations. Accordingly, OGE believes that this provision is more appropriately included as a limitation to the recusal obligation in § 2635.604. OGE also proposes to revise and move the two corresponding examples from § 2635.603(b), Examples 4 and 5, to § 2635.604(a) as Examples 3 and 4, to clarify the limitation to the recusal obligation under § 2635.604.
OGE is also adding new and revised examples to address informational discussions; highlight the distinction between seeking employment within the meaning of § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) and negotiating for employment within the meaning of § 2635.603(b)(1)(i); address whether an employee is “seeking employment” when the employee uses a social networking or resume-posting site; and provide practical guidance on rejecting employment inquiries from prospective employers.
In regard to social media, which has not been explicitly addressed in subpart F, three new examples clarify that the rules in this subpart apply regardless of the method the employee uses when seeking employment. Specifically, these examples illustrate that the posting of a profile, resume, or other employment information that is not targeted to a specific person is not considered an unsolicited communication with an entity regarding possible employment. Rather, such a posting would be akin to posting a resume on a bulletin board. Likewise, the employee would not be seeking employment with a person if the employee received a notification or email from a person until the employee makes a response other than a rejection.
A new example in the proposed regulation illustrates that online resume distribution services are treated like employment search firms for purposes of determining when an employee has begun seeking employment.
Section 17 of the STOCK Act establishes new notification requirements for an individual required to file a financial disclosure report under section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. app. 101). OGE proposes to include a definition of “public filer” describing the individuals who must submit such notification statements.
OGE proposes to revise § 2635.604 for clarity and reorganize § 2635.604(a) into two subsections. As discussed above, the proposed language includes a new § 2635.604(a)(2) to replace an exclusion to the definition of “seeking employment” in § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii)(B). This is not a new exception; rather, it merely moves the exclusion found at § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii)(B) to a more logical location in the subpart.
OGE has added a new example to emphasize that the recusal obligation in § 2635.604(a) is not limited to particular matters involving specific parties but is also applicable to particular matters of general applicability. In addition, OGE proposes to revise § 2635.604(b) to emphasize that employees are obligated to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they do not participate in particular matters from which they are recused. The proposed revision emphasizes that these steps can include written recusals, which employees may file with ethics officials.
OGE proposes to add a new requirement that any authorizations under § 2635.605(b) must be in writing.
OGE proposes to add a new § 2635.607 to implement section 17 of the STOCK Act. Section 17 of the STOCK Act requires a public filer who is negotiating for or has an agreement of future employment or compensation to file a statement notifying the agency ethics official of such negotiation or agreement within three business days after commencement of the negotiation or agreement. A public filer who files a notification statement regarding the negotiation or agreement also must file a notification regarding recusal whenever there is a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to the entity identified in the notification. In addition, this section affirms the recusal obligations addressed in the Standards of Ethical Conduct and, where applicable, 18 U.S.C. 208.
OGE issued interpretive guidance for implementing section 17 of the STOCK Act on April 6, 2012, and April 25, 2013.
Pursuant to OGE's authority under the Ethics in Government Act and Executive Order 12731, and consistent with OGE's interpretive guidance, OGE proposes to extend the notification requirement to negotiations for or agreements of future employment or compensation with all non-federal entities. The notification requirements under section 17 of the STOCK Act apply only to “private” entities. Because the potential for conflicts of interest is not limited to private entities, the proposed regulations cover all prospective non-federal employers. In addition, OGE proposes to include a provision allowing public filers to elect to file the notification statement, recusal statement, or both before negotiations
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects current Federal executive branch employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II), this proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 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 rulemaking has been designated as a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this proposed rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
Conflict of interests, Executive Branch standards of ethical conduct, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics proposes to amend 5 CFR part 2635, as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
This subpart contains a recusal requirement that applies to employees when seeking non-Federal employment with persons whose financial interests would be directly and predictably affected by particular matters in which the employees participate personally and substantially. Specifically, it addresses the requirement of 18 U.S.C. 208(a) that an employee not participate in any particular matter that, to the employee's knowledge, will have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of a person “with whom the employee is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment.”
(a)
Recently, an employee of the Department of Education who is not a public filer submitted her resume to the University of Delaware for a job opening that she heard about through a friend. The employee has begun seeking employment. However, because she is not participating in any particular matters affecting the University of Delaware, she is not required to notify anyone that she has begun seeking employment.
The employee in the preceding example has been approached about an employment opportunity at the University of Maryland. Because the University of Maryland has applied for grants on which she has been assigned to work in the past, she wants to make certain that she does not violate the ethics rules. The employee contacts her ethics official to discuss the matter. The employee informs the ethics official that she is not participating in any particular matters affecting the University of Maryland. As a result, the ethics official advises the employee that she will have no notification obligations under this subpart. However, the ethics official cautions the employee that, if the employee is assigned to participate in a particular matter affecting the University of Maryland while she is seeking employment with the university, she would normally need to notify her supervisor in order to avoid working on the grant.
(b)
(2)
(3)
For purposes of this subpart:
(a)
An employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who has announced her intention to retire is approached by tribal representatives concerning a possible consulting contract with the tribe. The contractual relationship the tribe wishes to negotiate is employment for purposes of this subpart.
An employee of the Department of Health and Human Services is invited to a meeting with officials of a nonprofit corporation to discuss the possibility of his serving as a member of the corporation's board of directors. Service, with or without compensation, as a member of the board of directors constitutes employment for purposes of this subpart.
An employee at the Department of Energy volunteers without compensation to serve dinners at a homeless shelter each month. The employee's uncompensated volunteer services in this case are not considered an employment or business relationship for purposes of this subpart.
(b) An employee is
(1) An employee has begun seeking employment if the employee has directly or indirectly:
(i) Engaged in negotiations for employment with any person. For these purposes, as for 18 U.S.C. 208(a) and section 17 of the STOCK Act, the term
(ii) Made an unsolicited communication to any person, or such person's agent or intermediary, regarding possible employment with that person. However, the employee has not begun seeking employment if that communication was for the sole purpose of requesting a job application; or
(iii) Made a response, other than rejection, to an unsolicited communication from any person, or such person's agent or intermediary, regarding possible employment with that person.
(2) An employee is no longer seeking employment when:
(i) The employee or the prospective employer rejects the possibility of employment and all discussions of possible employment have terminated; or
(ii) Two months have transpired after the employee's dispatch of an unsolicited resume or employment proposal, provided the employee has received no indication of interest in employment discussions from the prospective employer.
(3) For purposes of this definition, a response that defers discussions until the foreseeable future does not
A paralegal at the Department of the Army is in his third year of law school. During a discussion with his neighbor, who is a partner in a large law firm in the community, the neighbor invited him to visit her law firm. The paralegal took her up on the offer and met with an associate at the firm. The associate shared with the paralegal her experiences looking for a legal position, discussed what she does in her position at the law firm, and explained why she chose her current law firm. There was no discussion of possible employment with the firm. The Army paralegal is not seeking employment at this time. The purpose of the visit was informational only.
An employee of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is auditing the overhead accounts of an Army contractor. While at the contractor's headquarters, the head of the contractor's accounting division tells the employee that his division is thinking about hiring another accountant and asks whether the employee might be interested in leaving DCAA. The DCAA employee asks what kind of work would be involved. The DCAA employee has begun seeking employment because he made a response other than a rejection to the communication regarding possible employment with the Army contractor, although he has not yet begun negotiating for employment.
The DCAA employee and the head of the contractor's accounting division in the previous example have a meeting to discuss the duties of the position that the accounting division would like to fill and the DCAA employee's qualifications for the position. They also discuss ways the DCAA employee could remedy one of the missing qualifications, and the employee indicates a willingness to obtain the proper qualifications. They do not discuss salary. The employee has engaged in negotiations regarding possible employment with the contractor.
An employee at the Department of Energy (DOE) lists his job duties and employment experience in a profile on an online, business-oriented social networking service. The employee's profile is not targeted at a specific person. The employee has not begun seeking employment because the posting of a profile or resume is not an unsolicited communication with any potential employer.
The DOE employee in the previous example was recently notified that a representative of a university has viewed his profile. The employee still has not begun seeking employment with the university. Subsequently, a representative of the university contacts the employee through the online forum to inquire whether the employee would be interested in working for the university, to which he makes a response other than rejection. At this point, the employee has begun seeking employment with the university until he rejects the possibility of employment and all discussions of possible employment have terminated.
The DOE employee in the previous two examples receives emails from various companies in response to his online profile. He does not respond. The employee has not begun seeking employment with the companies because he has not made a response.
An employee of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is complimented on her work by an official of a State Health Department who asks her to call if she is ever interested in leaving Federal service. The employee explains to the State official that she is very happy with her job at CMS and is not interested in another job. She thanks him for his compliment regarding her work and adds that she'll remember his interest if she ever decides to leave the Government. The employee has rejected the unsolicited employment overture and has not begun seeking employment.
The employee in the preceding example responds by stating that she cannot discuss future employment while she is working on a project affecting the State's health care funding but would like to discuss employment with the State when the project is completed. Because the employee has merely deferred employment discussions until the foreseeable future, she has begun seeking employment with the State Health Department.
Three months prior to the end of the current administration, a political appointee at a large department receives a telephone call from the managing partner of an international law firm. The managing partner asks if the official would be interested in joining the law firm. The official says, “I am not talking to anyone about employment until I leave the Government.” The official has rejected the unsolicited employment overture and has not begun seeking employment.
A geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey sends her resume to an oil company. The geologist has begun seeking employment with that oil company and will be seeking employment for two months from the date the resume was mailed. However, if she withdraws her application or is notified within the two-month period that her resume has been rejected, she will no longer be seeking employment with the oil company as of the date she makes such withdrawal or receives such notification.
(c)
(1) A person who uses that agent or other intermediary for the purpose of seeking to establish an employment relationship with the employee if the agent identifies the prospective employer to the employee; and
(2) A person contacted by the employee's agent or other intermediary for the purpose of seeking to establish an employment relationship if the agent identifies the prospective employer to the employee.
An employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has retained an employment search firm to help her find another job. The search firm has just reported to the FAA employee that it has given her resume to and had promising discussions with two airport authorities, which the search firm identifies to the employee. Even though the employee has not personally had employment discussions with either airport authority, each airport authority is her prospective employer. She began seeking employment with each airport authority upon learning its identity and that it has been given her resume.
An employee pays for an online resume distribution service, which sends her resume to recruiters that specialize in her field. The online service has just notified her that they sent her resume to Software Company A and Software Company B. Even though the employee has not personally had employment discussions with either company, each software company is her prospective employer. She began seeking employment with each company upon learning from the online service that Software Company A and Software Company B had been given her resume by the intermediary.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2) The employee may participate in a particular matter under paragraph (a)(1) of this section when:
(i) The employee's only communication with the prospective employer in connection with the search for employment is the submission of an
(ii) The prospective employer has not responded to the employee's unsolicited communication; and
(iii) The matter is not a particular matter involving specific parties.
A scientist is employed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a special Government employee to serve on a panel that reviews grant applications to fund research relating to deterioration of the ozone layer. She is discussing possible employment with a university that received an NSF grant several years ago to study the effect of fluorocarbons but has no current grant applications pending before NSF. The employee is seeking employment, but she does not need to recuse because there is no particular matter that would have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of the prospective employer. Recusal would be required if the university submits a new application for the panel's review.
An employee of the Food and Drug Administration is developing a regulation on research criteria for approving prescription drugs. She begins discussing possible employment with a pharmaceutical company. The employee may not participate personally and substantially in the development of the regulation because she has begun employment discussions with the pharmaceutical company and the regulation is a particular matter of general applicability which would have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of the pharmaceutical company.
A special Government employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is assigned to advise the FDIC on rules applicable to all member banks. She mails an unsolicited letter to a member bank offering her services as a contract consultant. Although the employee is seeking employment, the employee may participate in this particular matter of general applicability until she receives some response indicating an interest in discussing her employment proposal. A letter merely acknowledging receipt of the proposal is not an indication of interest in employment discussions.
An employee of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is conducting an inspection of one of several textile companies to which he sent an unsolicited resume. The employee may not participate personally and substantially in the inspection because he is seeking employment and the inspection is a particular matter involving specific parties that will affect the textile company.
(b)
An employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is participating in the audit of a contract for laboratory support services. Before sending his resume to a lab which is a subcontractor under the VA contract, the employee should recuse from participation in the audit. Since he cannot withdraw from participation in the contract audit without the approval of his supervisor, he should notify his supervisor of his need to recuse for ethics reasons so that appropriate adjustments in his work assignments can be made.
An employee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is contacted in writing by a pharmaceutical company concerning possible employment with the company. The employee is reviewing an application from a pharmaceutical company that is seeking FDA approval. Once the employee makes a response that is not a rejection to the company's communication concerning possible employment, the employee should recuse from further participation in the review of the application. Where he has authority to ask his colleague to assume his reviewing responsibilities, he may accomplish his recusal by transferring the work to the employee designated to cover for him. However, to ensure that his colleague and others with whom he had been working on the review do not seek his advice regarding the review of the application or otherwise involve him in the matter, it may be necessary for him to advise those individuals of his recusal.
(c)
The General Counsel of a regulatory agency will be engaging in discussions regarding possible employment as corporate counsel of a regulated entity. Matters directly affecting the financial interests of the regulated entity are pending within the Office of General Counsel, but the General Counsel will not be called upon to act in any such matter because signature authority for that particular class of matters has been delegated to an Assistant General Counsel. Because the General Counsel is responsible for assigning work within the Office of General Counsel, he can, in fact, accomplish his recusal by simply avoiding any involvement in matters affecting the regulated entity. However, because it is likely to be assumed by others that the General Counsel is involved in all matters within the cognizance of the Office of General Counsel, he would benefit from filing a written recusal statement with an agency ethics official or the Commissioners of the regulatory agency and providing his subordinates with written notification of his recusal. He may also be specifically directed by an agency ethics official or the Commissioners to file a written recusal statement. If the General Counsel is a public filer, he must comply with the documentation requirements set forth in § 2635.607.
(d)
(a)
An employee of the Department of Agriculture is negotiating for employment within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 208(a) and § 2635.603(b)(1)(i) with an orange grower. In the absence of a written waiver issued under 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1), she may not take official action on a complaint filed by a competitor alleging that the grower has shipped oranges in violation of applicable quotas.
(b)
Within the past month, an employee of the Department of Education mailed her resume to a university. She is thus seeking employment with the university within the meaning of § 2635.603(b)(1)(ii). In the absence of specific authorization by the agency designee in accordance with § 2635.502(d), she may not participate in an assignment to review a grant application submitted by the university.
(a)
A military officer has accepted a job with a defense contractor that will begin six months after his retirement from military service. During the period that he remains with the Government, the officer may not participate in the administration of a contract with that particular defense contractor unless he has received a written waiver under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1).
An accountant has just been offered a job with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) which involves a two-year limited appointment. Her private employer, a large corporation, believes the job will enhance her skills and has agreed to give her a two-year unpaid leave of absence at the end of which she has agreed to return to work for the corporation. During the two-year period that she is to be an OCC employee, the accountant will have an arrangement concerning future employment with the corporation that will require her recusal from participation in any particular matter that, to her knowledge, will have a direct and predictable effect on the corporation's financial interests.
(b)
An employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission was relieved of responsibility for an investigation of a broker-dealer while seeking employment with the law firm representing the broker-dealer in that matter. The firm did not offer her the partnership position she sought. Even though she is no longer seeking employment with the firm, she may continue to be recused from participating in the investigation based on a determination by the agency designee that the concern that a reasonable person might question whether, in view of the history of the employment negotiations, she could act impartially in the matter outweighs the Government's interest in her participation.
(a)
An employee of the Merit Systems Protection Board who is a public filer was in private practice prior to his Government service. He receives a telephone call from a partner in a law firm who inquires as to whether he would be interested in returning to private practice. During this initial telephone call with the law firm partner, the employee indicates that he is interested in resuming private practice. They discuss generally the types of issues that would need to be agreed upon if the employee were to consider a possible offer to serve as “of counsel” with the firm, such as salary, benefits, and type of work the employee would perform. The employee has begun negotiating for future employment with the law firm. Within three business days after this initial telephone call, he must file written notification of the negotiations with his agency ethics official.
The employee in the previous example also negotiates a possible contract with a publisher to begin writing a textbook after he leaves Government service. Within three business days after commencing negotiations, the employee must file written notification with his agency ethics official documenting that he is engaged in negotiations for future compensation with the book publisher.
(b)
(c)
An employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority who is a public filer began negotiating for future employment with a law firm. At the time he began negotiating for future employment with the law firm, he was not participating personally and substantially in a particular matter that, to his knowledge, had a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of the law firm. Although the employee was not required to file a recusal statement because he did not have a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest with the law firm identified in the notification statement, the Office of Government Ethics encourages the employee to submit a notification of recusal at the same time that he files the notification statement regarding the negotiations for future employment in order to ensure that the requirement of paragraph (b) of this section is satisfied if a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest later arises. The agency ethics official should counsel the employee on applicable requirements but is under no obligation to notify the employee's supervisor that the employee is negotiating for employment.
An employee of the General Services Administration is contacted by a prospective employer regarding scheduling an interview for the following week to begin discussing the possibility of future employment. The employee discusses the matter with the ethics official and chooses to file a notification and recusal statement prior to the interview. The notification and recusal statement contain the identity of the prospective employer and an estimated date of when the interview will occur. The employee has complied with the notification requirement of section 17 of the STOCK Act.
(d)
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposes to make changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations pertaining to the eligibility of SNAP retail food stores. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) to increase the requirement that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores have available on a continual basis at least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of seven varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase, for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores, the minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required from two to three. This proposed rule would codify these mandatory requirements.
Further, using existing authority in the Act and feedback from a Request for Information that included five listening sessions in urban and rural locations across the nation and generated 233 public comments, FNS is proposing several additional changes. Among other items, these proposed changes address depth of stock, amend the definition of staple foods, and amend the definition of “retail food store” to clarify when a retailer is a restaurant rather than a retail food store. The rulemaking also proposes that FNS begin disclosing to the public specific information about retailers who have violated SNAP rules.
To be assured of consideration, comments on this proposed rule must be received by the Food and Nutrition Service on or before April 18, 2016.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
All submissions will be available for public inspection at the address above during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
Address any questions regarding this rulemaking to Vicky Robinson, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Retailer Policy and Management Division at the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Ms. Robinson can also be reached by telephone at 703–305–2476 or by email at
This proposed rulemaking is the result of two separate developments. First are statutory changes included in the 2014 Farm Bill. The second is the effort initiated by FNS in 2013 to look at enhancing the eligibility standards for SNAP retailers to better enforce the intent of the Act to permit low-income individuals to purchase more nutritious foods for home preparation and consumption.
The 2014 Farm Bill increases the requirement that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores have available on a continuous basis at least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories to a mandatory statutory minimum of seven varieties. Further, the 2014 Farm Bill increases the minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required from two to three. This proposed rule
In addition, on August 20, 2013, FNS published a notice entitled, “Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Enhancing Retail Food Store Eligibility” at 78 FR 51136. The Request for Information (RFI), which included fourteen specific questions, focused on ways to enhance the definitions of retail food store and staple foods, and overall eligibility requirements to participate in SNAP, in order to improve access to healthy foods and ensure that only retailers that effectuate the purposes of SNAP are authorized to accept benefits. FNS received a total of 211 comments from a diverse group, including retailers, academics, trade associations, policy advocates, professional associations, government entities, and the general public. RFI comments were considered in drafting this proposed rule and a copy of the comment summary can be viewed at:
In this rulemaking, based in part on feedback received via the RFI, FNS is proposing further revisions to SNAP regulations pertaining to the eligibility of retailers to participate in SNAP as retail food stores. Using the authorities in Sections 3 and 9 of the Act, these proposed revisions are intended to limit retailers that do not further the purposes of the Program from participating in SNAP without negatively impacting access for beneficiaries. This proposed rule would not impact eligible foods that can be purchased with SNAP benefits.
Over the years, a growing number of retailers have become authorized to participate in the Program as retail food stores. Some of these retailers operate primarily as restaurants, not retail food stores. Nothing in current regulations specifically prohibits items sold for SNAP benefits that are cold at the point-of-sale from being heated or cooked in the store after purchase. Further, current rules allow foods to be classified as staple or non-staple by their first ingredient; therefore some pizza restaurants, for example, have been deemed eligible with pizza as the qualifying staple food based on the primary ingredient (bread). After selling a cold pizza to SNAP customers, these firms subsequently heat the pizza and then have ultimately sold hot food from their pizza-restaurant location. Except for limited exceptions set forth under Section 3(k) of the Act and 7 CFR 278.1(d)(3), which permit State agencies to enter into contracts with restaurants to prepare and serve low-cost meals to homeless persons, elderly persons and SSI recipients, Congress specified in Section 3(k) and Section 3(o)(1) of the Act that SNAP-authorized retailers must sell food for home preparation and consumption, which does not include hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption. This proposed rulemaking would clarify and strengthen current regulations to ensure that SNAP retailer policy is aligned with this statutory intent.
The rulemaking also proposes to make ownership information tied to program violations available to the public, which will assist in maintaining program integrity.
Unless otherwise specified, the Agency proposes to implement the changes described in this rulemaking upon the effective date of the final rule.
In order to be eligible to accept SNAP benefits, under Section 3(o)(1) of the Act, a retailer must “sell food for home preparation and consumption” as well as meet other criteria in the Act and SNAP regulations. Section 3(k)(1) of the Act defines “food” to include “any food or food product for home consumption except . . . hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption. . . .” Congress specifically did not intend for restaurants to participate in SNAP, except under limited circumstances to serve the elderly, disabled, and homeless, as set forth in Section 3(k) of the Act and as referenced in Section 7(f)(2) of the Act.
The current SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(iv) provide that ineligible firms include “firms that are considered to be restaurants, that is, firms that have more than 50 percent of their total gross retail sales in hot and/or cold prepared foods not intended for home preparation and consumption.” However, nothing in current regulations specifically prohibits items sold for SNAP benefits to be sold cold at the point-of-sale and heated or cooked in the store after purchase. As a result of this gap in existing regulations, some firms are authorized to accept SNAP benefits even though they primarily sell cold, uncooked, or raw foods and offer to heat or cook those foods for customers for free or for cash before the customer leaves the store premises. This gap has allowed these entities that in effect sell hot foods ready for immediate consumption to participate in SNAP as authorized retailers. The changes noted above will not impact farmer's markets, direct-marketing farmers, military commissaries, and other relevant establishments as described in Sec. 4002 of the Act.
Comments from the RFI involving firms that primarily sell food for immediate consumption and that also sell products cold and heat them for SNAP customers after purchase were evenly split. Some expressed concerns that allowing prepared foods that could be cooked or heated after purchase would likely cost more than unprepared foods, pointing out that SNAP benefit amounts were based on the Thrifty Food Plan, which is a market basket of foods that makes the economic assumption that food purchased with SNAP benefits will be foods intended for home preparation and not prepared foods. Others expressed concern that SNAP recipients without access to a kitchen could benefit by being able to have prepared foods cooked in stores where they are purchased.
Despite this latter comment, the Agency thinks it is important to maintain the intent of Congress' restriction on hot food purchases. Therefore, the rulemaking proposes to close the existing gap in SNAP regulations that allows these types of entities to become authorized SNAP retailers by adding language to the definition of retail food store in current regulations at 7 CFR 271.2 that would require that at least 85 percent of an entity's total food sales must be for items that are not cooked or heated on-site before or after purchase. This proposed threshold is based on a review of the data submitted by SNAP authorized restaurants currently operating outside of the intent of the Program. FNS requests comments regarding this threshold and the benefits and costs of alternative levels.
Additionally, this rule would add language to prevent such businesses that do not effectuate the purposes of SNAP from circumventing SNAP rules by splitting into two separate businesses that operate under one roof in order to gain eligibility for one of the businesses to participate in SNAP as a retail food store. For example, a restaurant purporting to be two separate businesses (one a hot foods restaurant and one a cold-prepared foods location) for purposes of SNAP authorization but operating from a single location with common employees, accounting, and management, is not eligible. FNS would not recognize separate businesses operating in one location and eligibility determinations would continue to be made based on an evaluation of these separate businesses as a single entity. FNS seeks comments relative to any unintended adverse effects of this proposed change.
The Agency proposes to make the requirements detailed above under
The rule also proposes to clarify the use of different terms, such as entities, firms, retailers and stores. These are terms used interchangeably in regulations and other policy, and they should be treated as equivalent terms in SNAP regulations and policies.
As defined in Section 3(k) of the Act, current regulations define staple foods as foods in the following categories: Meat, poultry or fish; bread or cereals; vegetables or fruits; and dairy products. Current regulations at 7 CFR 271.2 specify that foods with multiple ingredients can only be counted in one staple food category, based on the main ingredient, when determining retailer eligibility. This is sometimes confusing and requires labels on many multiple-ingredient products to be examined closely in order to confirm the main ingredient when assigning it to the appropriate staple food category. For example, the main ingredient in some frozen chicken pot pies is bread and in others the main ingredient is chicken; therefore, one brand of chicken pot pie might be categorized in the bread or cereals category and another brand of chicken pot pie might be categorized in the meat, poultry or fish category. In addition, counting foods with multiple ingredients has allowed prepared foods sold for carry-out or for on-site consumption to be counted as staple foods when determining a store's eligibility to participate in SNAP, enabling some restaurants to inappropriately participate in SNAP as retail food stores.
In order to prevent confusion and unintended consequences caused by foods with multiple ingredients, this rulemaking proposes to amend 7 CFR 278.1(b) to revise language in 7 CFR 271.2 defining staple food. The rulemaking proposes to define staple food as those food items intended for home preparation and consumption in each of the following four categories: meat, poultry, or fish; bread or cereals; vegetables or fruits; and dairy products. Hot foods are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits and, therefore, do not qualify as staple foods for the purpose of determining eligibility under 278.1(b)(1) of this chapter. Commercially processed foods and prepared mixtures with multiple ingredients that do not represent a single staple food category shall not be counted in any staple food category. Examples of such foods include cold pizza, macaroni and cheese, multiple ingredient soup, sandwiches, TV dinners, and pot pies. Accessory food items include foods that are generally consumed between meals and/or are generally considered snacks or desserts such as, but not limited to chips, dips, crackers, cupcakes, cookies, ready-popped popcorn, pastries, and candy, or food items that complement or supplement meals, such as, but not limited to coffee, tea, cocoa, carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, condiments, spices, salt, and sugar, and shall not be considered staple foods for purposes of determining the eligibility of any firm. These changes would ensure that those foods that do not represent a single staple food category, such as commercially processed and prepared mixtures with multiple ingredients are not considered when determining eligibility to participate in SNAP as a retail food store. Multiple ingredient foods include frozen entrees and prepared sandwiches, prepared salads, and pizza. These foods do not include such items as yogurt, cheeses, and cereals as the primary staple ingredient is clearly represented and easily recognized.
Multiple ingredient foods and accessory foods would not be counted toward variety, perishables, or depth of stock when determining a firm's eligibility to participate in SNAP as a retail food store. This would not change the eligibility of these foods for purchase with SNAP benefits in authorized stores. FNS believes this approach would better reflect the intent of Congress that staple foods are those foods used primarily for home preparation and consumption that provide the main sources of nutrition intake for households.
The rulemaking also proposes changes to the Agency's interpretation of accessory foods, which are not considered to be staple foods, but are eligible foods that can be purchased with SNAP benefits. The Agency currently treats any food items for home preparation and consumption not specifically listed as an accessory food in Section 3(q)(2) of the Act as a staple food. Section 3(q)(2) of the Act states that staple foods do not include “accessory food items, such as coffee, tea, cocoa, carbonated and un-carbonated drinks, candy, condiments and spices.” This language in Section 3(q)(2) indicates that the list of accessory foods in the Act is an illustrative list, not a complete list. Therefore, under the proposed changes, FNS is clarifying that in addition to the examples of accessory foods provided in Section 3(q)(2) of the Act, accessory foods also include items such as chips, dips, cookies, cakes and pastries that are commonly recognized as snack foods and desserts and/or that are typically consumed between meals. Similar to candy, carbonated and un-carbonated drinks, and condiments, which are examples of accessory foods provided in the Act, chips, ready-popped popcorn, cookies, cakes and pastries and similar foods are examples of snack foods or desserts, with limited nutritional value. FNS believes counting such foods as accessory items will ultimately encourage stores to offer more nutritious options and provide SNAP recipients access to a larger selection of healthy foods. Stores that, until now, have relied on these types of accessory foods to count as staple foods may need to expand their offerings of proper staple foods to continue to be eligible. FNS remains concerned that those stores that sell predominantly accessory foods do not further the purposes of SNAP. FNS is interested in public comments as to additional foods that should be categorized as accessory items and/or standards and criteria to determine whether a food is a staple food or an accessory; for example, popcorn that is already popped and has added salt or butter would be considered an accessory food. FNS is interested in whether and how the public would make a distinction between dried corn as a grain and popcorn (popped or un-popped) as a snack food. Accessory foods would remain eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits but would not be counted as staple foods for purposes of determining a store's eligibility to participate in SNAP.
FNS understands there are challenges in making clear distinctions in the areas of multi-ingredient foods and accessory foods. FNS plans to issue specific guidance on the changes proposed in this rulemaking. In the past, FNS has issued questions and answers following a final rule. FNS is seeking comments on what specific aspects of the proposed changes should be addressed in guidance and whether guidance should again be issued after the rule is final or concurrent to issuance of the final rule.
There was mixed reaction from commenters on the RFI with respect to counting multiple ingredient foods as staple foods when determining store eligibility. Approximately half the submissions, including retailer groups and food manufacturers, support the current requirements to count foods with multiple ingredient foods in one staple food category based on the main ingredient. Other commenters, including farmers markets, professional associations, government agencies and
However, there was strong support, and little opposition, from those submitting comments to the RFI for the notion that enhancing the standards for staple foods would lead to healthier food options that would help prevent obesity and reduce food insecurity. Consequently, most supported changes to the current definition of “staple foods.”
Changes proposed for regulations at 7 CFR 271.2 would also require clarification in 7 CFR 278.1 to conform to those changes. Current regulations at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C) include language about multiple ingredient foods and, as stated above, this rulemaking proposes to revise and add language to clarify that such foods are not counted as staple foods for purposes of determining store eligibility. Therefore, conforming changes to this paragraph are being proposed as well.
In addition, the rule proposes to codify in 7 CFR 278.1 mandatory requirements from the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill amended Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act to increase the required minimum variety of foods in each staple food category from three to seven different varieties and require perishables in three staple food categories instead of two, in order to be eligible to participate in SNAP as a retail food store. The rulemaking also proposes a minimum number of six stocking units per variety to ensure that retailers can meet the statutory requirement to offer for sale, on a continuous basis, staple foods in each staple food category. This stocking depth ensures that stores offer the minimum number of varieties on a continuous basis, as required by law without complicating collection of information that store visit contractors now collect for FNS to use in determining store eligibility. FNS requests comments on this stocking depth requirement. This new requirement only affects establishments and house-to-house trade routes that meet the definition of a retail food store in accordance with Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Act; it does not affect establishments and house-to-house trade routes that have over 50 percent of their total sales in staple foods and would meet the definition of retail food store under Section 3(o)(1)(B) of the Act (
The rule also proposes to revise in 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(B) what constitutes a variety of staple foods in order to clear up any confusion that may exist with current regulations and to conform to earlier changes in 7 CFR 271.2 to the definition of staple foods pertaining to multiple ingredient foods.
Responses to the RFI questions mostly indicated support, though there was limited opposition, for the now mandatory, statutory changes to increase the minimum number of staple foods by increasing variety requirements. Most felt the minimum of twelve items currently required was too few. There was also support for the now mandatory, statutory change that requires perishable items in more than two staple food categories.
The Agency proposes to make the requirements detailed above under “Staple Food” and “Determination of Authorization” effective for all new applicants within 120 days of the effective date of a final rule. Further, FNS proposes that once these requirements become effective for new applicants, a retailer that is withdrawn or disqualified for a term and is subsequently reinstated, must meet these new requirements prior to reinstatement. Finally, this rule proposes that SNAP retailers authorized to participate in the Program on the effective date of the final rule will have one year (365 days) from the effective date of the final rule to comply with the new requirements.
The 2014 Farm Bill amended Section 9(a) of the Act to allow the Agency to consider whether an applicant retailer is located in an area with significantly limited access to food when determining the qualifications of that applicant. Pursuant to that change, FNS proposes to amend 278.1(b) to allow the Agency to consider need for access when a retailer does not meet all of the requirements for SNAP authorization.
FNS is interested in comments and suggestions regarding this proposed change. In considering need for access, at both authorization and reauthorization, the Agency would consider factors such as distance from the nearest SNAP authorized retailer, transportation options to other SNAP authorized retailer locations, the gap between store's stock and SNAP required stock for authorization eligibility, and whether the store furthers the purposes of the Program. FNS is particularly interested in comments to help the Agency refine the language in the proposed change.
With the exception of employment identification numbers (EINs) and social security numbers (SSNs), the Act allows information collected from retail food stores to be disclosed for purposes directly connected with the administration and enforcement of the Act and SNAP regulations. This rulemaking proposes to allow FNS to disclose to the public specific information about retailers that have been disqualified or otherwise sanctioned for SNAP violations. The information would be disclosed only after the time for administrative and judicial appeals has expired and would be limited to the name and address of the store, the owner name(s) and information about the sanction itself. Public disclosure of this information may include the posting of a list of sanctioned retailers on a public Web site. Public disclosure of such information would assist the Department in its efforts to combat SNAP fraud by providing an additional deterrent. The information would also provide the public with valuable information about the integrity of these businesses and individuals for future dealings. Therefore, public disclosure of this information would be for purposes directly connected with the administration and enforcement of the Act and its regulations.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all cost 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 cost and benefits, of reducing cost, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The RIA for this rulemaking was published as part of the docket in Supporting Documents on
The proposed rule is needed to codify mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm
This rulemaking will codify mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, and strengthen provisions in current regulations, to conform to the intent of the statutory requirements. Proposed changes will improve SNAP recipient access to a variety of healthy food options. It reflects the Department's commitment to provide vital nutrition assistance to our most vulnerable Americans, protect taxpayer dollars and build on aggressive efforts to ensure program integrity. The proposed rule would allow FNS to ensure that retailers authorized to participate in SNAP as retail food stores are consistent with the purposes of the Program. It would reinforce the intent of SNAP, that participants use their benefits to purchase more nutritious foods intended for home preparation and consumption. FNS requests information on any other benefits of this rule.
There will be minor costs to the Federal government as a result of the rule, as it does not change benefit levels, and existing retailer authorization and oversight resources would be used to enforce it. FNS anticipates that this rule may result initially in a small increase in requests for administrative reviews, but the estimated cost for additional reviews is less than $150,000. With respect to the cost impact to retailers, the rule would mainly impact those firms that are minimally stocked and those that are primarily restaurants and therefore are inconsistent with the intent of Congress to make foods available to SNAP participants for home preparation and consumption. Firms that do not stock sufficient staple foods to meet the new requirements will have the opportunity to modify their staple food stock in order to be eligible to participate in SNAP. In the course of store reviews, FNS has observed that stores that are determined to not be eligible typically expand their food offerings to participate in SNAP. FNS requests comments on the costs to retailers from this rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Pursuant to that review, FNS believes that the rulemaking does not present a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small businesses; although the number of stores impacted is large, we estimate that the cost to those small businesses for stocking additional inventory would be nominal, on average about $140. However, FNS has prepared this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to provide the opportunity for comment and input from the public. The complete Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this rule was published as part of the docket in Supporting Documents on
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. This rulemaking is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have Federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of the Executive Order 13132. FNS has determined that this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications. This proposed rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive effects with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effects unless so specified in the Effective Date paragraph of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Currently, FNS provides regularly scheduled quarterly consultation sessions as a venue for collaborative conversations with Tribal officials or their designees. Reports from these consultations are part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal consultation and collaboration. FNS will respond in timely and meaningful manner to Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this proposed rule. The policies contained in this rulemaking
FNS has reviewed this rule in accordance with Departmental Regulations 4300–4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis” and 1512–1, “Regulatory Decision Making Requirements.” After a careful review of the proposed rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rulemaking will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of individuals to receive SNAP benefits on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion or political belief nor will it have a differential impact on minority owned or operated business entities, and woman owned or operated business entities that participate in SNAP. The regulation affects or may potentially affect certain retail food stores that participate in (accept or redeem) SNAP. The only retail food stores that will be directly affected, however, are those retailers that participate in SNAP in accordance with Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Act and that do not stock at the newly required and proposed levels, or whose hot food (heated before or after purchase) sales exceed 15 percent. FNS does not collect data from retail food stores regarding any of the protected classes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. FNS specifically prohibits retailers that participate in SNAP to engage in actions that discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion or political belief. This proposed rule will not change any requirements related to the eligibility or participation of protected classes or individuals, minority owned or operated business entities, or woman owned or operated business entities in SNAP. As a result, this rulemaking will have no differential impact on protected classes of individuals, minority owned or operated business entities, or woman owned or operated business entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. There is no new information collection burden associated with this proposed rule.
FNS 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.
Food stamps, Grant programs—Social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Approval and participation of retail food stores and wholesale food concerns, food stamps; Participation of financial institutions, disqualification and imposition of civil penalties or fines for retail food stores and wholesale food concerns; and Disposition of claims; penalties.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 271 and 278 are proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2011–2036.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(i) A retail food store that is authorized to accept or redeem SNAP benefits;
(ii) A retail food store that is not authorized to accept or redeem SNAP benefits; or
(iii) An entity that does not meet the definition of a retail food store.
(2) For purposes of the regulations and SNAP policies, the terms firm, entity, retailer, and store are used interchangeably.
(1) * * * In addition, at least 85 percent of an entity's total food sales must be for items that are not cooked or heated on-site before or after purchase. Establishments that include separate businesses that operate under one roof and have commonalities, such as sale of similar foods, single management structure, shared space, logistics, bank accounts, employees, and/or inventory, are considered to be a single establishment when determining eligibility to participate in SNAP as retail food stores.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Offer for sale and normally display in a public area, qualifying staple food items on a continuous basis, evidenced by having, on any given day of operation, no fewer than seven different varieties of food items in each of the staple food categories, with a minimum of six stocking units for each food item. * * *
(C) Offer a variety of staple foods which means different types of foods within each staple food category. For example: apples, cabbage, tomatoes, bananas, melons, broccoli, and squash in the vegetables or fruits category; or animal-based milk, plant-based milk, hard cheese, soft cheese, butter, sour cream, and yogurt in the dairy category; or rice, couscous, quinoa, bread, cold cereals, oatmeal, and flour tortillas in the bread or cereals category; or chicken, turkey, duck, beef, pork, salmon, and tuna in the meat and fish category. Variety of foods is not to be interpreted as different brands, nutrient values, packaging types or package sizes of the same or similar foods. Similar food items such as, but not limited to, link sausages and sausage patties, different types of cold breakfast cereals, whole milk and skim milk, or different types of apples (
(iv) * * * Firms that do not have 85 percent or more of their total food sales in items that are not cooked or heated on-site, before or after purchase, are ineligible. * * *
(6) FNS will consider whether the applicant is located in an area with significantly limited access to food. In determining whether an applicant is located in such an area, FNS will consider factors such as distance from the nearest SNAP authorized retailer, transportation options to other SNAP authorized retailer locations, the gap between a store's stock and SNAP required stock for authorized eligibility, and whether the store furthers the purpose of the Program.
(q) * * *
(5)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its rules of practice and procedure to establish procedures for responding to adverse court decisions and to annually report to the public each instance where the NRC does not receive “sufficient funds reasonably necessary to implement in good faith its statutory mandates.” The petition, dated October 22, 2015, was submitted by Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov (the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on November 10, 2015, and was assigned Docket Number PRM–2–15. The NRC is examining the issues raised in this petition to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment on PRM–2–15 at this time.
The PRM is available on February 17, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0264 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this petition by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For technical questions contact Mr. Ian Irvin, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301–415–3138, email:
The petitioner, Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov, states, among other things, that his “interest is in securing for the NRC and the nation” benefits that would “[e]nhance public safety and health,” “[r]educe costs,” and “[a]lign NRC's practices with its principles.”
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 2 of title 10 of the
The petitioner proposes that the NRC issue two new rules to address concerns about the NRC's actions in response to the August 13, 2013, decision in
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 2 to require that in “each instance where a court of competent jurisdiction rules that NRC violated applicable law” the NRC promptly take the following actions:
• Evaluate and determine the cause or causes for each violation;
• conduct an “extent of condition” evaluation to determine whether NRC's implementation of other statutes and regulations (
• implement immediate corrective actions to address any violations identified by the extent of condition evaluation;
• formulate and implement robust corrective actions to prevent recurrence that are based on the cause and extent of condition evaluations; and
• prepare and issue a report to the public that documents these activities.
In addition, the NRC would be required to formally “request review by the U.S. Department of Justice (1) of the adequacy of NRC oversight mechanisms and whether enhancements are warranted . . . and (2) of whether offenses proscribed by the federal criminal code . . . formed the basis of or contributed to the adverse court ruling.” The petitioner states that these amendments “would be effective retroactively, beginning with the 08/13/13
The petitioner also requests that 10 CFR part 2 be amended to require that the NRC annually “report to the public each instance where it does not receive sufficient funds reasonably necessary to implement in good faith its statutory mandates. . . .” The petitioner states that this report should include a discussion “of whether NRC (1) was directed to request either no or insufficient funds, and complied with that direction; (2) did request sufficient funds, which were withheld by Congress; or (3) did not request sufficient funds.” The petitioner recommends that the report also include “a discussion of the consequences of each instance with respect to (1) public safety and health; (2) environmental protection; (3) the common defense and security; (4) the reputation/credibility of the agency as a `trusted, independent, transparent, and effective nuclear regulator,' and (5) collateral fiscal impacts (
The petitioner asserts that some of the “Benefits to [the] NRC and the Nation” that would be gained as a result of issuing these proposed rules include:
• Enhancing public safety and health;
• Reducing cost;
• Aligning the NRC's practices with its principles;
• Aligning the NRC's practices with the tenets it has set out for ensuring a positive safety culture; and
• Aligning the NRC's practices with its mission statement, vision, and organizational values.
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for docketing a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking—requirements for filing,” and the petition has been docketed as PRM–2–15. The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM–2–15, to determine whether they should be considered in the rulemaking process.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting and reopening of comment period.
On December 29, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81199), has been extended. DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NOPR received no later than February 29, 2016. See
The meetings will be held at U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. See the section “Public Participation” for details on submitting comments.
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: 202–586–6590. Email:
On December 29, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the
DOE will host a public meeting and webinar on February 19, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at DOE's Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NOPR received no later than February 29, 2016. DOE will consider any comments in response to the NOPR received by midnight of February 29, 2016, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Room 8E–089. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinar and receive call-in information, please register at
To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email Ms. Brenda Edwards
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes have been made regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.
DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Import Data Collection, and provide docket number EERE–2015–BT–CE–0019 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1990–AA44. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or to request a public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency during endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). This proposed AD would require inspecting certain THSAs to determine
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 4, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact 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 Directive 2015–0080, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During endurance qualification tests on A380 Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced. Investigation results concluded that this particular malfunction was due to an ageing/endurance issue of the surfaces of the NBB carbon friction disks, leading to a partial loss of braking efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions.
Due to design similarity on A320 family fleet, the same tests were initiated by the THSA manufacturer on certain SA type THSA, sampled from the field. Subject tests confirmed that THSA Part Number (P/N) 47145 series, as installed on A320 family aeroplanes, are also affected by this partial loss of NBB efficiency.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in conjunction with the power gear train not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the THS, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires [inspecting certain THSAs to determine the number of total flight cycles the THSA has accumulated and replacing THSAs having certain total flight cycles.] * * * .
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–27–1242, dated February 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the THSA with a serviceable THSA. 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.
The MCAI requires operators to replace certain THSAs by certain dates. The replacements are done for THSAs exceeding a certain flight cycle limit corresponding to each date. EASA determined that accomplishing the replacements by these dates is necessary in order to address the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we are also specifying compliance dates in this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $81,515, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 21 work-hours and require parts costing $26,500, for a cost of $28,285 per product. We have no way of
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 April 4, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency during endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to prevent premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA, which could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions, and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Not later than each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD: Inspect the THSA to determine if it has a part number (P/N) 47145–(XXX), and, if any THSA P/N 47145–(XXX) is found, determine the total number of flight cycles accumulated since the THSA's first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later. A review of airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the THSA can be conclusively determined from that review. In case maintenance records concerning the most recent NBB disk replacement are unavailable or incomplete, the total flight cycles accumulated since first installation of the THSA on an airplane apply.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 40,000 total flight cycles.
(2) As of December 31, 2016: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 36,000 total flight cycles.
(3) As of December 31, 2017: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 33,600 total flight cycles.
(4) As of December 31, 2018: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 31,600 total flight cycles.
(5) As of December 31, 2019: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 30,000 total flight cycles.
For airplanes with any THSA P/N 47145–(XXX): Do the replacements required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Not later than each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, replace all THSA that have reached or exceeded on each date the corresponding number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. Do the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1242, dated February 9, 2015. Affected THSAs must be replaced with serviceable THSAs.
(2) As of each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and before exceeding the flight cycle limit corresponding to each date, as applicable: Replace each THSA with a serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1242, dated February 9, 2015.
For the purposes of this AD: A serviceable THSA is a THSA that has not exceeded the applicable flight-cycle-limits, as specified paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, since first installation of the THSA on an airplane or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.
Guidance for NBB disc replacement can be found in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 47145–27–17, Revision 1, dated July 21, 2015.
As of each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable, installation of a THSA P/N 47145–(XXX) is allowed on an airplane, provided the THSA is a serviceable THSA.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015–0080, dated May 7, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Lisbon, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Lisbon Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–5800; Docket No.15–AGL–21, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817–222–5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Lisbon Municipal Airport, Lisbon, ND.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2015–5800/Airspace Docket No. 15–AGL–21.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 6.5-mile radius of Lisbon Municipal Airport, Lisbon, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Lisbon Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E en route domestic airspace in the Dupree, SD, area, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–3599; Docket No. 15–AGL–14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
Raul Garza Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817–222–5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace in the Dupree, SD, area.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2015–3599/Airspace Docket No. 15–AGL–14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface in the Dupree, SD area. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.
Class E airspace designations are published in Section 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 46°43′39″ N., long. 099°00′09″ W.; to lat. 46°43′12″ N., long. 098°27′11″ W.; to lat. 45°53′47″ N., long. 098°15′19″ W.; to lat. 45°15′09″ N., long. 098°45′49″ W.; to lat. 44°40′45″ N., long. 099°45′58″ W.; to lat. 44°44′16″ N., long. 100°47′46″ W.; to lat. 44°52′34″ N., long. 100°57′29″ W.; to lat. 45°28′56″ N., long. 102°46′15″ W.; to lat. 45°34′49″ N., long. 102°46′44″ W.; to lat. 45°40′17″ N., long. 099°00′09″ W., thence to the point of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belle Fourche Municipal Airport, Belle Fourche, SD; Madison Municipal Airport, Madison, SD; Mobridge Municipal Airport, Mobridge, SD; and Harold Davidson Field, Vermillion, SD. The decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches due to advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports.
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2016–0525; Airspace Docket No. 16–AGL–1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Belle Fourche Municipal Airport, Belle Fourche, SD; Madison Municipal Airport, Madison, SD; Mobridge Municipal Airport, Mobridge, SD; and Harold Davidson Field, Vermillion, SD.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2016–0525/Airspace Docket No. 16–AGL–1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belle Fourche Municipal Airport, Belle Fourche, SD;
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 6.4-mile radius of Belle Fourche Municipal Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 142° bearing from Belle Fourche Municipal Airport extending from the 6.4 mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Madison Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 334° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Mobridge Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Harold Davidson Field.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. The proposed revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by March 18, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0045, to
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
In the final rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Gladwin County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions).
This withdrawal is effective on February 17, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1187 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
On April 6, 2011 FEMA published a proposed rule at 76 FR 19007, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Gladwin County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions). FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule because FEMA has or will be issuing a Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood Insurance Study report, featuring updated flood hazard information. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations will be published in the
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 857 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This section provides additional requirements relative to the allowability of costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a congressional investigation or inquiry.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before April 18, 2016 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2015–016 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, at 202–969–7226 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAR case 2015–016.
Section 857 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113–291) amended 10 U.S.C. 2324(e)(1) to disallow costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a Congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a disposition as described in 10 U.S.C. 2324(k)(2).
While Section 857 only applies to contracts with the DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, for the purpose of promoting consistency in the accounting systems of Federal contractors, it was decided to apply the section's requirements to all agencies subject to the FAR.
Additionally, conforming language on unallowable costs is proposed for FAR 31.603–16, as well as for 31.603–15 (to update language associated with Whistleblower complaints).
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 a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The proposed rule will be manifested as a cost principle to which only select small businesses are subject. An analysis of contracts awarded during Fiscal Year 2014 revealed that fewer than 200 small businesses were performing contracts subject to FAR 31. Given the small segment of the small business population that could be impacted by the rule, in concert with the low likelihood of the conditions being met, the impact on small businesses is insignificant.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015–016), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR part 31 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The addition reads as follows:
(f) * * *
(9) A Congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a disposition as described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section (see 10 U.S.C. 2324(e)(1)(Q)).
(b) Agencies are not expected to place additional restrictions on individual items of cost. However, under 10 U.S.C. 2324, 41 U.S.C. 4304, 31 U.S.C. 3730, and 41 U.S.C. 4310, the following costs are unallowable:
(15) Unless any of the exceptions at 31.205–47(c), (d) or (e) apply, costs incurred by a contractor in connection with any criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings that result in dispositions as described in 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) or 41 U.S.C. 4310 commenced by a Federal, State, local, or foreign government, or by a contractor or subcontractor employee submitting a whistleblower complaint of reprisal in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 4712 or 10 U.S.C. 2409, for violation of, or a failure to comply with, law or regulation by the contractor (including its agents or employees); or costs incurred in connection with any proceeding brought by a third party in the name of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730.
(16) Costs incurred in connection with a Congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a disposition as described in 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) or 41 U.S.C. 4310, unless any of
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has reached a preliminary decision to extend our determination of nonregulated status of Pioneer corn event DP–004114–3 (hereinafter Pioneer 4114 corn) to Syngenta's corn event MZIR098 in response to a request from Syngenta Seeds Inc. MZIR098 corn has been genetically engineered for resistance to insects and to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium using the same mechanism of action as Pioneer 4114. We are making available for public comment our preliminary regulatory determination, preliminary finding of no significant impact, and plant pest risk similarity assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 18, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The Syngenta Seeds Inc. extension request, our preliminary finding of no significant impact, our preliminary determination, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Supporting documents and any comments we received regarding our determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent organism, Pioneer 4114 corn, can be found at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147 Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
On June 20, 2013,
As described in the extension request, MZIR098 corn was developed through agrobacterium-mediated transformation to stably incorporate genes designated as
As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS evaluates the plant pest risk of the article. In section 403 of the PPA, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.
APHIS completed a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) on the antecedent organism in which we concluded that Pioneer 4114 corn is unlikely to present plant pest risks. APHIS also prepared a plant pest risk similarity assessment (PPRSA) to compare MZIR098 to the antecedent. As described in the PPRSA, the proteins expressed in MZIR098 corn are similar to those expressed in Pioneer 4114 corn, and APHIS has concluded that the proteins expressed in Pioneer 4114 corn are unlikely to pose a plant health risk. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the safety of the proteins expressed in MZIR098 corn and concluded that there would “no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” from exposures to these proteins. Therefore, based on our PPRA for Pioneer 4114 corn and the similarity between Pioneer 4114 corn and MZIR098 corn as described in the PPRSA, APHIS has concluded that the proteins expressed in MZIR098 corn are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.
In addition, APHIS has carefully examined the existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation completed for Pioneer 4114 corn and has concluded that Syngenta's request to extend a determination of nonregulated status to MZIR098 corn encompasses the same scope of environmental analysis as Pioneer 4114 corn. Therefore, based on the similarity of MZIR098 corn to Pioneer 4114 corn, APHIS has prepared a preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on MZIR098 corn. The FONSI was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action,
APHIS has analyzed information submitted by Syngenta, references provided in the extension request, peer-reviewed publications, and information in the NEPA documentation prepared for the antecedent organism. APHIS has also analyzed information in the PPRA for the antecedent organism and other information. Based on APHIS' analysis of this information and the similarity of MZIR098 corn to the antecedent organism Pioneer's 4114 corn, APHIS has determined that MZIR098 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a preliminary decision to approve the request to extend the determination of nonregulated status of Pioneer 4114 corn to MZIR098 corn, whereby MZIR098 corn would no longer be subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms.
Paragraph (e) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
APHIS will accept written comments on the preliminary FONSI regarding a determination of nonregulated status of MZIR098 corn for a period of 30 days from the date this notice is published in the
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the comments, if APHIS determines that no substantive information has been received that would warrant APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, our preliminary regulatory determination will become final and effective upon notification of the public through an announcement on our Web site at
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a preliminary determination regarding a request from Monsanto Co. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for maize designated as event MON 87419, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides dicamba and glufosinate. We are also making available for public review and comment our preliminary plant pest risk assessment, draft environmental assessment, and preliminary finding of no significant impact for the preliminary determination of nonregulated status.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 18, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS–2015–0048, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents for this petition and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Supporting documents for this petition are also available on the APHIS Web site at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 15–113–01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize (
According to our process
After public comments are received on a completed petition, APHIS evaluates those comments and then provides a second opportunity for public involvement in our decisionmaking process. According to our public review process (see footnote 1), the second opportunity for public involvement follows one of two approaches, as described below.
If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises no substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 1 for public involvement. Under Approach 1, APHIS announces in the
Had APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues, APHIS would follow Approach 2. Under Approach 2, APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft EA and preliminary PPRA for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a
As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a PPRA to assess the plant pest risk of the article. APHIS also prepares the appropriate environmental documentation—either an EA or an environmental impact statement—in accordance with NEPA, to provide the Agency and the public with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts that may result if the petition request is approved.
APHIS has prepared a preliminary PPRA and has concluded that maize designated as event MON 87419, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides dicamba and glufosinate, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.
APHIS has also prepared a draft EA in which we present two alternatives based on our analysis of data submitted by Monsanto, a review of other scientific data, field tests conducted under APHIS oversight, and comments received on the petition. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action,
The draft EA was prepared in accordance with (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by Monsanto, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the draft EA, the preliminary PPRA, comments provided by the public on the petition, and discussion of issues in the draft EA, APHIS has determined that maize designated as event MON 87419 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a decision to make a preliminary determination of nonregulated status of maize designated as event MON 87419, whereby maize designated as event MON 87419 would no longer be subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.
We are making available for a 30-day review period APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination of maize designated as event MON 87419, along with our preliminary PPRA, draft EA, and preliminary FONSI for the preliminary determination of nonregulated status. The draft EA, preliminary FONSI, preliminary PPRA, and our preliminary determination for maize designated as event MON 87419, as well as the Monsanto petition and the comments received on the petition, are available as indicated under
After the 30-day review period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the 30-day review period. If, after evaluating the information received, APHIS determines that we have not received substantive new information that would warrant APHIS altering our preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially changing the proposed action identified in the draft EA, or substantially changing the analysis of impacts in the draft EA, APHIS will notify the public through an announcement on our Web site of our final regulatory determination. If, however, APHIS determines that we have received substantive new information that would warrant APHIS altering our preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially changing the proposed action identified in the draft EA, or substantially changing the analysis of impacts in the draft EA, then APHIS will conduct the additional analysis and prepare an amended EA, a new FONSI, and/or a revised PPRA, which would be made available for public review in a subsequent notice in the
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement.
The Ochoco National Forest is preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the effects of changing the existing motorized trail system to create and designate a sustainable system of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicles that will provide legal public access, enhance regulation of unmanaged wheeled motor vehicle travel, protect resources, and decrease conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use on the Ochoco National Forest. Consistent with the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, this action is needed to provide to the public a diversity of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel. The original notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the
The supplemental draft environmental impact statement is expected to be completed and available for public comment in February 2016. The final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed in the fall of 2016.
Ochoco Summit Trail System Planning Team, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754.
Marcy Anderson, Project Leader, at 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, or at (541) 416–6463, or by email at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of constructing a motorized trail from Morgan Meadows to Caribou City on the Soda Springs Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 18, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected June, 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected October, 2016.
Send written comments to Garth Smelser, Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83402. Comments may also be sent via email to
Jessica Taylor, Forest NEPA Coordinator at 208–557–5837.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose for this project is to respond to outside public interest to provide a motorized trail opportunity from Morgan Meadows to Caribou City allowing forest visitors to experience the historic mining history of the area.
The proposed action would establish a motorized ATV trail from Morgan Meadows to Caribou City. The proposed action comes from planning efforts that have occurred since 2007. This alternative includes constructing approximately 2.2 miles of new trail and managing the new trail as a motorized ATV trail. Further, the proposed action calls for reconstructing approximately 4.85 miles of existing trails, exploratory mining roads and abandoned roads (see Alternative 2 Map) to implement the Winschell Dugway Motorized Trail project.
The proposed action addresses the trail corridor in the following specific segments:
1. Use .75 mile of ATV Trail #449, from Morgan Meadows to Tincup Creek.
2. Reconstruction of 1.5 miles of trail from Tincup Creek to the saddle west of Jackknife Basin.
3. Construct 1.5 miles along the ridgeline west of Jackknife Basin to an old reclaimed gold exploratory road.
4. Use of old reclaimed gold exploratory road for approximately .6 mile.
5. Construction of .1 mile down into the Bilk Creek drainage.
6. Use of abandoned mining road that crosses Bilk Creek and continues to ridgeline between Anderson and Bilk Creeks.
7. Construction of .5 mile on ridgeline in the Anderson Creek drainage back into Bilk Creek.
8. Use of old roadbed for .2 mile in Bilk Creek.
9. Construction of .1 mile of route that would tie into a well-used road that takes the trail to Caribou City.
The route would require the installation of ATV bridges at four stream crossings; on Bilk Creek (2), Tincup Creek (1) and on an unnamed tributary to Tincup Creek (1). A cooperative agreement with Bonneville County Parks and Recreation and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation would be created, specifying management and maintenance responsibilities of all parties.
Alternatives currently being considered for the Winschell Dugway Motorized Trail project include: (a) No action, and (b) proposed action as outlined above.
Forest Supervisor, Garth Smelser, is the responsible official.
The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action as described above, or to meet the purpose and need for action through some other combination of activities as a result of the scoping process, or to take no action at this time.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
The purpose of this comment period is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide early and meaningful participation on a proposed action prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Per 36 CFR 218, only those who provide specific, written comments regarding the proposed project or activity will be eligible to file an objection.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget approve a 3-year extension and revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Swine Contract Library program.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2016.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Internet: Go to
• Mail, hand deliver, or courier to R. Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604.
• Fax to (202) 690–2173.
Catherine M. Grasso, Program Analyst, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division at (202) 720–7201 or
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration is responsible for maintaining the Swine Contract Library, which is authorized by the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act of 1999, and requires that certain packers submit hog procurement contracts and delivery estimates to GIPSA. The LMR was reauthorized on October 5, 2006, September 27, 2010, and September 30, 2015, for an additional 5 years each time.
Packers are required to report information for individual plants. The information collection burden estimate provided below is based on time and cost requirements at the plant level. Consequently, packers that report for more than one plant would bear a cost that would be a multiple of the per-plant estimates.
We understand from discussions with packers complying with current reporting requirements that reporting packers have adapted pre-existing data and information systems to provide the required information.
There are two types of information collections required for the Swine Contract Library.
The first information collection requirement consists of submitting example contracts. Initially, a packer submits example contracts currently in effect or available for each swine processing plant that is subject to the regulations. Subsequently, a packer submits example contracts for any offered, new, or amended contracts that vary from previously submitted contracts in regard to the base price determination, the application of a ledger or accrual account, carcass merit premium and discount schedules (including the determination of the lean percent or other merit of the carcass that is used to determine the amount of the premiums and discounts and how those premiums and discounts are applied), or the use and amount of noncarcass merit premiums or discounts. The initial submission of example contracts requires more time than subsequent filings of new contracts or changes, as packers initially need to review all their contracts to identify the unique types that need to be represented by an example contract submitted to GIPSA.
Thereafter, subsequent filings require a minimal amount of effort on the part of packers, as only example contracts that represent a new or different type need to be filed with GIPSA. Form P&SP–342 “Contract Submission Cover Sheet,” must accompany each contract submission to identify the contract, the plan for which the contract is valid, and the contact person.
Packers are required to submit both written and verbal contracts. Packers must document verbal contracts which adds to their existing recordkeeping systems in order to comply with this requirement. Optional form P&SP–343 “Verbal Contract Optional Documentation Sheet,” provides a format to document the verbal agreement.
The second information collection requirement is a monthly filing of summary information on form P&SP 341, Monthly Report: Estimates of Swine To Be Delivered Under Contract. The form for the monthly filing is simple and brief. For new packers required to start reporting, this data should be available in the packers' existing record system. We encourage electronic submission and provide the necessary information on procedures to submit data to GIPSA electronically.
The estimates of time requirements used for the burden estimates below were developed in consultation with GIPSA personnel knowledgeable in the industry's recordkeeping practices. The estimates also reflect our experience in assembling large amount of data during the course of numerous investigations involving use of data collected from the industry. Estimates of time requirements and hourly wage costs for developing electronic recordkeeping and reporting systems are based on our experience in developing similar systems in consultation with our automated information systems staff.
Thereafter, 81 total hours annually for all subsequent filing of example contracts by all plants combined, based on an average of 6 newly offered or amended contracts annually.
Total Cost: Initial filing $138 for one expected new plant. Calculated as follows: 5.5 hours × $25 per hour = $138
Thereafter: $2025 annually for all plants combined for submission of subsequent filings. Calculated as follows: 81 hours × $25 per hour = $2,025
Calculated as follows: 2 hours per response × 54 plants × 12 responses per plant = 1,296
648 hours for all plants combined provided all plants use electronic compiling, preparation, and submission. Calculated as follows: 1 hour per response × 54 plants × 12 responses per plant = 648 hours.
Total Cost: $32,400 annually for all plants combined provided all use manual submission. Calculated as follows: 1,296 × $25 per hour = $32,400
$16,200 annually for all plants combined provided all were to completely utilize electronic preparation and submission. Calculated as follows: 648 hours × $25 per hour = $16,200
Additional $180 one-time set-up cost provided all plants newly subject to the Regulations were to completely utilize electronic systems for preparation and submission. Calculated as follows: 1 hour build spreadsheet/database + 2 hours develop electronic interface = 3 hours. 3 hours total development × $60 per hour × 1 new plant = $180
The Paperwork Reduction Act also requires GIPSA to measure the recordkeeping burden. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act and its existing regulations, each packer is required to maintain and make available upon request any records necessary to verify information on all transactions between the packer and producers from whom the packer obtains swine for slaughter. Records that packers are required to maintain under existing regulations would meet the requirements for verifying the accuracy of information required to be reported for the Swine Contract Library. These records include original contracts, agreements, receipts, schedules, and other records associated with any transaction related to the purchase, pricing, and delivery of swine for slaughter under the terms of marketing contracts. Additional annual costs of maintaining records would be nominal since packers are required to store and maintain such records as a matter of normal business practice and in conformity with existing regulations.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)), GIPSA specifically requests comment to:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden on 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.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
44 U.S.C. 3506 and 5 CFR 1320.8.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
These forms are used to conduct the Construction Progress Reporting Surveys (CPRS) to collect information on the dollar value of construction put in place on non-residential building projects under construction by private companies or individuals, private multifamily residential buildings, and building projects under construction by federal and state and local governments.
The Census Bureau uses the information collected on these forms to publish estimates of the monthly dollar value of construction put in place. Statistics from the CPRS become part of the monthly “Value of Construction Put in Place” or “Construction Spending” series, a Principal Economic Indicator that is used extensively by the federal government in making policy decisions and used to estimate the gross domestic product (GDP). The private sector uses the statistics for market analysis and other research. Construction now accounts for approximately five percent of GDP.
There are two changes planned to the content of these questionnaires. The first is the elimination of the data item for square footage of the construction project. This information was used for editing but is no longer needed. The second change is the addition of a data item to collect the projected completion date to assist with imputation if a
Form C–700 is used to collect data on construction of privately-owned nonresidential buildings and structures. Form C–700(R) is used to collect data on privately-owned residential building projects with two or more housing units. Form C–700(SL) is used to collect data on state and local government construction projects. Form C–700(F) is used to collect data on federal government construction projects.
Published statistics are used by all levels of government to evaluate economic policy, to measure progress toward national goals, to make policy decisions, and to formulate legislation. For example, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) staff uses the data to develop the construction components of gross private domestic investment and government investment in the Gross Domestic Product. The Federal Reserve Board and the Department of the Treasury use the data to develop monetary policy. Private businesses and trade organizations use the data to estimate demand for building materials and to schedule production, distribution and sales efforts.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 3, 2016, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security senior management.
3. Report by regime representatives.
4. Report by working groups (Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group, and the Chemicals Working Group).
5. Public Comments and New Business.
6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 5, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 2, 2016, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 5, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on March 10, 2016, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
1. Welcome and Opening Remarks.
2. Update on Export Control Reform, Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Issues for discussion: Atom-based sensing; International Summit on Human Gene Editing; Nanotechnology; Advanced Materials—Graphene Center—China; EAR–4E001.e; Sanctions and the Scientific Community—Russia; and Emerging Technology issues at recent events.
4. Remarks by: Senior Advisor for Innovation and Competitiveness, Office of the Secretary-U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
5. Presentation: “Addressing Electromagnetic Threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure”.
6. JINSA Germunder Center for Defense Strategy.
7. Presentation: “Creative Disruption: Technology, Strategy and the Future of the Global Defense Industry”, Center for a New American Security.
8. Distribution of new emerging technology topics for analysis by ETRAC members
9. Discussion of ETRAC review of Export Administration Regulations needing revisions.
10. Comments from the Public.
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at Y
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 8, 2016, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.
3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
5. Other business.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Howard Smith (PRC), David Cordell (Russia) or Julie Santoboni (Ukraine), Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5193, (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482–3063, respectively.
On December 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published, in the
This notice serves to correct the incorrect initiation date of the next five-year sunset reviews in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy and gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the
Joy Zhang (La Molisana) or George McMahon (the Rummo Group), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482–1167, respectively.
On August 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins
The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Effective February 17, 2016.
Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD
On December 22, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary rescission of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for Zhejiang Changxing CTL Auto Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Changxing).
Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
As discussed in the
Because we are rescinding the new shipper review of Changxing, we are not making a determination as to whether Changxing qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, Changxing remains part of the PRC entity and any entries covered by this new shipper review will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate.
Effective upon publication of the final rescission of the new shipper review of Changxing, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Changxing.
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 this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jennifer Helgeson, Economist, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8603, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1710, telephone 301–975–6133, or via email to
Through acts such as the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) and the NIST Organic Act, among others, as well as the President's Climate Action Plan (2013),
NIST will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. NIST may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, and whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about the HSRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted at
The meeting will be held on March 15, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. CDT; March 16, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and March 17, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Times are subject to change.
Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis, HSRP program manager, National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, NOAA (N/NSD), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone: 301–713–2750 ext. 166; email:
The meeting is open to the public, and public seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The times of onsite public comment periods, scheduled for each day, will be included in the draft and final agendas. Each individual or group making verbal comments will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Comments will be recorded. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should email or fax their comments to
The HSRP will provide webinar and teleconference capability for the public sessions. Pre-registration is required by March 14, 2016. For instructions, go to
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate
The Panel will hear from federal agencies and non-federal organizations about their missions and their use of NOAA's navigation services; what value these services bring; and what improvements could be made. Other administrative matters may be considered. This agenda is subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet March 8–14, 2016. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Monday, March 14, 2016. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, March 9 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
Meetings of the Council and its advisory entities will be held at the Doubletree by Hilton Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95815; telephone: (916) 929–8855.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820–2280 or (866) 806–7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site,
The March 9–14, 2016 meeting of the Pacific Council will be streamed live on the internet. The broadcasts begin at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT) Wednesday, March 9, 2016 and continue daily through Monday, March 14, 2016. Broadcasts end daily at 6 p.m. PT or when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion and presentations displayed on the screen at the Pacific Council meeting will be broadcast. The audio portion is listen-only; you will be unable to speak to the Pacific Council via the broadcast. To access the meeting online please use the following link:
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “(Final Action)” refer to actions requiring the Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, advisory entity meeting times, and meeting rooms are described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance March 2016 briefing materials and posted on the Council Web site at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for Letters of Authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting waterfront construction, over the course of five years from the date of issuance. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than March 18, 2016.
Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
An electronic copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Incidental taking shall be allowed if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) affected and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On January 19, 2016, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the Navy requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to waterfront construction conducted by the Navy. The requested regulations would be valid for five years, from July 12, 2017, through July 11, 2022. The Navy plans to conduct work necessary to maintain existing waterfront structures as well as to construct new structures at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA (NSB Kings Bay). The proposed action may incidentally expose marine mammals occurring in the vicinity to elevated levels of underwater sound, thereby resulting in incidental take, by Level B harassment only. Therefore, the Navy requests authorization to incidentally take marine mammals.
To ensure the Navy can continue its mission of supporting the Fleet Ballistic Missile System and Trident Submarine Program, the Navy proposes to repair (including direct repairs and repairs by component replacement) in-water structures at NSB Kings Bay, construct a new Transit Protection System Operational Support Facility, and extend the existing Layberth Pier. These repairs, upgrades, and new construction would (1) address critical damage and mission and safety requirements, (2) limit further deterioration and increase the useful life of the structures, and/or (3) upgrade infrastructure to meet requirements of new submarine technology. Construction will include use of impact and vibratory pile driving, including installation and removal of steel, concrete, and timber piles.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instruments and instructions should be sent to Michael Dame, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230 (or via email at
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act, Pub. L. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012)) was signed by the President on February 22, 2012. The Act meets a long-standing priority of the Administration, as well as a critical national infrastructure need, to create a single, interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) that will, for the first time, allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety officials to effectively communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. Public safety workers have long been hindered in their ability to respond in a crisis situation because of incompatible communications networks and often outdated communications equipment. The Act establishes the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and authorizes it to take all actions necessary to ensure the design, construction, and operation of the NPSBN, based on a single, national network architecture.
FirstNet is responsible for, at a minimum, ensuring nationwide standards for the use of and access to the network; issuing open, transparent, and competitive requests for proposals (RFPs) to build, operate, and maintain the network; encouraging these RFPs to leverage, to the maximum extent economically desirable, existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network; and overseeing contracts with non-federal entities to build, operate, and maintain the network.
The Act also charges NTIA with establishing the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) to assist state, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions with identifying, planning, and implementing the most efficient and effective means to use and integrate the infrastructure, equipment, and other architecture associated with the NPSBN to satisfy the wireless broadband and data services needs of their jurisdictions. The SLIGP program office awarded $116.5 million in grant funds to 54 active state and territorial recipients between July 2013 and June 2014.
Moreover, the Act's framework contemplates that FirstNet will coordinate its activities with state, regional, tribal, and local governments and imposes a statutory requirement that FirstNet consult with these entities as it takes all actions necessary to build, deploy, and operate the NPSBN. Specifically, the Act requires FirstNet to consult with state, regional, tribal, and local governments about the distribution and expenditure of any amounts required to carry out its responsibilities, including (i) The construction of a core network and any radio access network build-out; (ii) placement of towers; (iii) coverage areas of the network; (iv) adequacy of hardware, security, reliability, and resiliency requirements; (v) assignment of priority to local users and selection of entities seeking network access; and (vi) training needs of local users.
Additionally, the Act specifies that these required consultations are to occur between FirstNet and the single point of contact that the state was required to designate in its application for grant funds under SLIGP or that the governor has since designated. Thus, progress in meeting FirstNet's responsibilities under the Act, including its required consultations, is inextricably linked to SLIGP. FirstNet must rely on NTIA to utilize SLIGP as the principal means to facilitate its required consultations. At the same time, without funding assistance from SLIGP, the states would lack the resources to consult effectively with FirstNet and provide it with information needed for it to proceed with the design and construction of a NPSBN in an effective and timely manner, as required by the Act.
SLIGP recipients' periods of performance will end either on December 31, 2017, January 31, 2018, or February 28, 2018, depending on when the award was made. Following the award end date, grantees will be required to complete grant closeout activities within 90 days. The purpose of closeout is to capture a final account of grantee activities and how these activities contributed to overall program goals. To ensure effective grant oversight and management, SLIGP developed a closeout report form for recipients to complete as part of post-award monitoring and closeout activities at the end of the period of performance. The closeout form serves as a summary of grant-funded recipient activities over the entire award period and ensures that recipients comply with all necessary closeout procedures. The closeout form will ask recipients to aggregate their cumulative progress toward program priority areas identified in their quarterly performance progress reports (PPRs), namely stakeholders engaged, broadband conferences attended, staff hired, contracts executed, governance meetings held, outreach materials disseminated, and overall progress toward FirstNet-determined data collection activities. Recipients will also be asked to report on their cumulative expenditures throughout the period of performance in each object class category, including personnel, fringe, travel, equipment, materials/supplies, contractual, construction, other, and indirect costs.
NTIA will use the collection of information to ensure that SLIGP grant recipients are effectively monitored and evaluated against the core purposes of the program established by the Act. The publication of this notice allows NTIA to begin the process to obtain the approval for the standard three years.
Paper format.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 11/20/2015 (80 FR 72710–72711), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
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 proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before March 18, 2016 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
Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day
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 proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection, titled, “Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) 12 CFR 1024.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before March 18, 2016 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:
• Electronic:
• OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395–5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
This amendment to Regulation X requires lenders to provide mortgage applicants a list of certified homeownership counselors at or soon after the time of their application. This requirement is meant to help applicants be informed about the process of applying for a mortgage, and receive additional non-biased guidance if desired.
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 proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before March 18, 2016 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:
• Electronic:
• OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395–5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is
The ECOA also prescribes creditors to inform applicants of decisions made on credit applications. In particular, where creditors make adverse actions on credit applications or existing accounts, creditors must inform consumers as to why the adverse action was taken, such that credit applicants can challenge errors on their accounts or learn how to become more creditworthy. Creditors must retain all application information for 25 months, including notices sent and any information related to adverse actions.
Finally, the ECOA requires creditors who furnish applicant information to a consumer credit bureau to reflect participation of the applicant's spouse, if the spouse if permitted to use or contractually liable on the account.
Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of computer matching program between the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Social Security Administration.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–503), OMB Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (54 FR 25818, June 19, 1989), and OMB Circular No. A–130, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” the Corporation for National and Community Service (“CNCS”) is issuing a public notice of the computer matching program with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).
CNCS will file a report of the subject computer matching agreement with the Office of Management and Budget and Congress. The matching program will begin April 1, 2016 or 40 days after the date of CNCS's submissions to OMB and Congress, whichever is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.
You may submit comments identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods.
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attention Zachary Jackson, Project Manager, Suite 300, 250 E. Street SW., Washington, DC, 20525.
(2) By fax to: (202) 606–3467.
(3) By email to:
Zachary Jackson, Project Manager, (202) 606–6948, or by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–503), regulates the use of computer matching agreements by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. Among other things, it requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching agreements to publish a notice in the
Participants in this computer matching program are the Social Security Administration (source agency) and the Corporation for National and Community Service (recipient agency).
The computer match between CNCS and SSA will enable CNCS to verify the social security numbers of individuals applying to serve in approved national service positions and those designated to receive national service education awards under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA)
This agreement is executed in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (5 U.S.C. 552a), and the regulations and guidance promulgated under the Act.
SSA's legal authority to enter into this agreement is section 1106 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1306) and the regulations promulgated pursuant to that section (20 CFR part 401). The authority for SSA's disclosure of record information is 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).
Section 146(a)(3) of the NCSA (42 U.S.C. 12602(a)) sets forth the eligibility requirements for an individual to receive an Education Award from the National Service Trust upon successful completion of a term of service in an approved national service position. Section 1711 of the Serve America Act (Pub. L. 111–13) directs CNCS to enter into a data matching agreement to verify statements made by an individual declaring that such individual is in compliance with section 146(a)(3) of the NCSA by comparing information provided by the individual with information relevant to such a declaration in the possession of another Federal agency. In accordance with the study CNCS completed pursuant to section 1711 of the Serve America Act, CNCS determined that a data matching program with SSA is the most effective means to verify an individual's statement that he or she is in compliance with section 146(a)(3) of the NCSA.
Each individual who is eligible to receive an education award or applies to serve in an approved national service position, including positions in AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps VISTA, AmeriCorps NCCC, and Serve America Fellows, must, at the time of acceptance of an education award or application to serve, certify that the individual meets the citizenship eligibility criteria to serve in the position,
The Master Files of Social Security Number Holders and SSN Applications SSA/OTSO 60–0058, last published in full on December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82121), as amended on July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542) and February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8780) maintains records about each individual who has applied for and obtained an SSN. SSA uses information from this system to assign SSNs. The information CNCS provides from the AmeriCorps Member Individual Account; Corporation -8 system of record, published in full on March 5, 1999 (64 FR 10879–10893), as amended on August 1, 2000, (65 FR 46890–46905) and July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48616–48617) will be matched against this system of records and verification results will be disclosed under the applicable routine use.
This agreement will be in effect for a period of 18 months, with a provision for a one-time extension for a period not to exceed 12 months. In order to renew this agreement, both CNCS and SSA must certify to their respective Data Integrity Boards that: (1) The matching program will be conducted without change; and (2) the matching program has been conducted in compliance with the original agreement.
CNCS will provide SSA with a data file including each applicant's and potential education award recipient's social security number, first and last names, and date of birth. SSA will conduct a match on the identifying information. If the match does not return a result verifying the individual's citizenship status, CNCS will contact the individual or the grant recipient program that selected the individual to verify the results in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(p) and applicable OMB guidelines. The affected individual will have an opportunity to contest the accuracy of the information provided by SSA. The applicant will have at least 30 days from the date of the notice to provide clear and convincing evidence of the accuracy of the social security number, proof of U.S. citizenship, or both.
Applicants will be informed at the time of application that information provided on the application is subject to verification through a computer matching program. The application package will contain a privacy certification notice that the applicant must sign authorizing CNCS to verify the information provided.
For transferees of education awards, at the time an award is transferred, CNCS will provided individual notice that the SSN is subject to verification through a computer matching program. CNCS will send a privacy notice to the transferee, and in the case of a minor, to the parent or legal guardian. The transferee, parent, or legal guardian must sign the privacy certification authorizing CNCS to verify the information provided.
CNCS will furnish a copy of this notice to both Houses of Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the President's Volunteer Service Awards (PVSA), parts A, B, C, D, E and F. This information will be provided by certifying organizations which will include non-profits, schools, universities, businesses and faith based organizations. This is a voluntary submission in order to place an order for an award.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attention: David Premo, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
David Premo, 202–606–6717, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
The President's Volunteer Service Awards were created by Executive Order on January 30, 2003. The awards are administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Under the Executive Order, the Corporation was directed to (among other things) design and recommend programs to recognize individuals, schools, and organizations that excel in their efforts to support volunteer service and civic participation, especially with respect to students in primary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning. The President's Volunteer Service Awards fulfills this direction. In order to recognize individuals, schools and organizations, the program must collect information about the individuals and organizations and their activities to verify that they are eligible to receive the award and have earned the award.
The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on March 31, 2016.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services- Cleveland, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199, ATTN: Mr. Charles Moss,
The Child Annuitant's School Certification form is submitted to the child for completion and returned to this agency. The child will certify as to his or her intent for future enrollment and a school official must certify on the past or present school enrollment of the child. By not obtaining school certification, overpayment of annuities to children would exist. This information may be collected from some schools which are non-profit institutions such as religious institutions. If information is not received after the end of each school enrollment, over disbursements of an annuity would be made to a child who elected not to continue further training or study.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services—Indianapolis, DFAS–ZPR, 8899 E. 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249, ATTN: Ms. La Zaleus D. Leach,
The referenced United States Code sections on waivers provide for an avenue of relief for individuals who owe debts to the United States, which resulted from erroneous payments. Criteria for waiver of a debt includes a determination that there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the individual owing the debt or any other person interested in obtaining a waiver. Information obtained through the proposed collection is needed in order to adjudicate the waiver request under the law.
Office of the Secretary of Defense of Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Mr. Sam Peterson at Defense Manpower Data Center, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955–6771.
For the purposes of this submission, the affected public is comprised of military applicants, and employees of government contractors, experts, instructors, and consultants to Federal programs who underwent a personnel background investigation after January 1, 1990. Additionally, other individuals whose Social Security Numbers (SSN) were provided on an SF 85, SF85–P or SF86 after January 1, 1990. Lastly, it also applies to individuals who submit a breach verification inquiry as well as minor children, who were minors as of July 1, 2015, of individuals described in this paragraph.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services—Cleveland, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199, ATTN: Mr. Charles Moss,
The form is used by the Directorate of Retired and Annuity Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Cleveland, in order to pay the annuity to the correct person on behalf of a child under the age of majority. If the form, with the completed certification is not received, the annuity payments are suspended.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services-Cleveland, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199, ATTN: JFBDA—Mr. Charles Moss,
When a member of the uniformed services is declared mentally incompetent, the need arises to have a trustee appointed to act on their behalf with regard to military pay matters. Trustees will complete this form to report the administration of the funds received on behalf of the member. The requirement to complete this form helps alleviate the opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse of Government funds and member's benefits.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 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 April 18, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Shedita Alston, 202–502–7808.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed
To reduce respondent burden, the NCC has streamlined and simplified the previously approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The NCC will enhance the collection and analyses of longitudinal follow up data from the new 25 TPSID model programs via an already developed and previously OMB approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The revised data collection system is part of an evaluation effort. The system will collect program data at the institutions from TPSID program staff via an online, secure data management system.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 March 18, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202–377–4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This request is for an extension of the current record-keeping requirements contained in the regulations at 34 CFR 668.232 and 668.233, related to the administrative requirement of the financial assistance for students with intellectual disabilities program.
In notice document 2016–02676, appearing on pages 7087–7089 in the issue of Wednesday, February 10, 2016, make the following correction:
On page 7087, in the table on line 4, the term “Dish engine system” should appear in the second column under “Types” instead of the third column under “Components”.
On page 7089, in the first column, the heading “II. Confidential Business Information” should be in bold text.
Department of Energy.
Notice of revision of listing of covered facilities.
The Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) periodically publishes revisions to the list of facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (“EEOICPA” or “Act”). This Notice amends the list of covered facilities by correcting the facility description and the covered period for Jessop Steel Company in Washington, Pennsylvania, and adding the designation of Duriron Company in Dayton, Ohio (“Duriron”) as an atomic weapons employer (“AWE”) facility for purposes of EEOICPA.
Effective February 17, 2016.
The Department welcomes comments on this Notice. Comments should be addressed to: Patricia R. Worthington, Ph.D., Director, Office of Health and Safety (AU–10), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Patricia R. Worthington, Ph.D., Director, Office of Health and Safety (AU–10), (301) 903–5926.
This Notice amends the list of covered facilities by correcting the facility description and the covered period for Jessop Steel Company in Washington, Pennsylvania, and adding the designation of Duriron in Dayton, Ohio, as an AWE facility for purposes of EEOICPA. Previous lists or revisions were published by DOE on July 16, 2015 (80 FR 42094); February 11, 2013 (78 FR 9678), February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5781); May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30695); August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45608); April 9, 2009 (74 FR 16191); June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35448); November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71815); August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51825); July 21, 2003 (68 FR 43095); December 27, 2002 (67 FR 79068); June 11, 2001 (66 FR 31218); and January 17, 2001 (66 FR 4003).
EEOICPA establishes a program to provide compensation to certain employees who develop illnesses as a result of their employment with DOE and its predecessor agencies, as well as employees of certain of its contractors, subcontractors, beryllium vendors and AWEs. Section 7384l(4) of EEOICPA, codified at 42 United States Code, defines an AWE as “an entity, other than the United States, that—(A) processed or produced, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining and milling; and (B) is designated by the Secretary of Energy as an [AWE] for purposes of the compensation program.” Section 7384l(5) defines an AWE facility as “a facility, owned by an [AWE], that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling.”
It has recently come to the attention of the Department that the covered facility description and the covered period for Jessop Steel Company should be amended to include the shearing of uranium metal plates on March 2, 1954, which were sent to the DOE Savannah River Site. Moreover, the description of Jessop Steel Company should be revised to delete the reference to the proposed rolling of uranium since no records indicate that this work was ever performed.
In addition, records indicate that uranium-contaminated nickel scrap metals were sent to Duriron in December 1952, which were used to produce stainless-steel piping for the Fernald plant. Accordingly, Duriron meets the definition of an AWE facility under EEOICPA and should be added to the DOE list of covered facilities.
This Notice formally makes the changes to the listing of covered facilities as indicated below:
• The covered facility description and the covered period for Jessop Steel Company are revised to include the shearing of uranium metal plates in March of 1954 and delete the reference to the proposed rolling of uranium.
• Duriron is designated as an AWE under EEOICPA and its Dayton, Ohio, location is added to the DOE list of covered facilities for the period of December 1952.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94–409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
February 18, 2016 at 10 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda *NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502–8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502–8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “General
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0606, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Norma Abdul-Malik, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–8753; fax number: 703–308–8617; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
• Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;
• Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;
• Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;
• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and
• Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable.
The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables the EPA to properly determine whether owners/operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004(a) of RCRA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “EPA's ENERGY STAR Product Labeling” (EPA ICR No. 2078.06, OMB Control No. 2060–0528) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0033, to (1) EPA 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.
Kirsten Hesla, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Mailcode 6202J,
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Program participants submit signed Partnership Agreements indicating that they will adhere to logo-use guidelines and program requirements. Retail partners commit to selling, marketing and promoting ENERGY STAR certified products. Product brand owner partners, who are usually the manufacturer of the products, commit to having participating products certified to meet specified energy performance criteria based on a standard test method and EPA's third party certification requirements. These requirements for ENERGY STAR product certification also include provisions for verifying the performance of certified products through verification testing.
Now, product information is recorded by Certification Bodies and shared with EPA using XML-based web services that validate and save the information in EPA's database. With this new process of obtaining certified product data, certified model data is automatically updated daily on the ENERGY STAR Web site. To ensure continued product performance after initial certification, EPA requires Certification Bodies to conduct post-market verification testing of a sampling of ENERGY STAR certified products. Certification Bodies are required to share information with EPA on products subjected to this post-market testing twice a year and to immediately report any certified products that no longer meet the program requirements. This process allows EPA to monitor the ongoing performance of products and take necessary steps to maintain consumer confidence in the ENERGY STAR label and protect the investment of partners.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Tips and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2219.05, OMB Control No. 2020–0032) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0494, to (1) EPA 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.
Michael LeDesma, Legal Counsel Division, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training;
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1093.11, OMB Control No. 2060–0162), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0534, to: (1) EPA 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.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of federal advisory subcommittee meetings.
Consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice of two upcoming public meetings of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee convened under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will provide advice and recommendations on how the EPA can best clarify assumable waters for dredge and fill permit programs pursuant to the Clean Water Act section 404(g)(1). The EPA is undertaking this effort to support states and tribes that wish to assume the program. Similar to the parent NACEPT, the subcommittee represents a diversity of interests from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and local, State, and tribal governments.
Meeting agendas and materials will be posted at
The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will hold two 3-day public meetings on:
• March 15 and 16, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and on March 17, 2016, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the One Potomac Yard Building in Arlington, VA.
• June 7 through 9, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in the One Potomac Yard Building in Arlington, VA.
One Potomac Yard, 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA, 22202.
Laura Bachle, Designated Federal Officer, via Email at:
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to the Assumable Waters Subcommittee should be sent to Laura Bachle via Email at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991.
Here, the Commission proposes to revise FCC Form 481 and its instructions to reflect information collection requirements that the Commission recently adopted. This includes reporting and certification requirements for price cap carriers that elected to receive Phase II model-based support, reporting and certification requirements for recipients of rural broadband experiment support, a reasonably comparable rate certification for broadband for recipients of high-cost support, and an E-rate bidding certification for Phase II model-based support and rate-of-return carrier high-cost recipients. The Commission also proposes to add templates for some of these obligations and to add a template for the existing obligation that certain ETCs report data regarding newly served community anchor institutions. Additionally, the Commission proposes to delete the outdated information collection for Phase II model-based support elections and to adjust the number of respondents for the state certification letter and annual reporting requirements to reflect that rural broadband experiment recipients must now meet these requirements. The Commission also proposes to modify the existing Phase II certification requirement to reduce the hours to reflect that some aspects of the existing certifications have been superseded by the new proposed requirements and to adjust the number of respondents to reflect the number of price cap carriers that accepted Phase II model-based support. Finally, the Commission proposes to make a number of non-substantive changes to FCC Form 481 and its instructions.
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
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991.
The Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110–385, Stat 4096, section 103(c)(1) directs the Commission to collect information on the types of technology used to provide broadband to large businesses and small businesses, the price of such services, actual data transmission speeds and the reasons for non-adoption of broadband service. Additionally, the FCC in the
The purpose of this collection is to enable residents of the United States to voluntarily report the unavailability of broadband service at the household street address level and to test the speed and quality of their broadband service. This collection will provide the Commission with unique data on household availability of broadband and on relative broadband speeds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The FCC is responsible for the regulation of both authorized radio services and devices that can cause interference. The FCC, working in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for ensuring that radio frequency devices imported into the United States are properly authorized. FCC Form 740 must be completed for each radio frequency device which is imported into the United States, and is used to keep non-compliant devices from being distributed to the general public, thereby reducing the potential for harmful interference being caused to authorized communications. FCC Form 740 is submitted to CBP electronically or, in a few cases, in paper format. The FCC Form 740 is not submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. FCC works with the CBP to resolve issues related to the importation of unauthorized radio frequency devices, and can issue fines for violation of its rules.
This information collection extension does not affect the ongoing rulemaking in ET Docket 15–170, which includes proposed rules that would modify or eliminate FCC Form 740.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
This collection also includes the third party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580 (OMB approval was received for Section 73.3580 under OMB Control Number 3060–0031). 47 CFR 73.3580 requires local public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the station is located or providing notice over the air of the filing of all applications for assignment of license/permit. This notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. A copy of the newspaper notice or a record of the broadcast notice and the application must be placed in the public inspection file.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10239, Southwest Community Bank, Springfield, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Southwest Community Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to:
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 24, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
10:00 a.m., Friday, February 19, 2016.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
Reserve bank personnel matters.
Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202–452–2955.
You may contact the Board's Web site at
The company listed in this notice has applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (Edge Corporation) 12 U.S.C. Sec. 611
The application below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in Section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding this application may be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
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 March 11, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
8:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) February 22, 2016 (In-Person).
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942–1640.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the CDC, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
This meeting will be held by teleconference. To participate in the teleconference, please dial 1–888–390–3409 Passcode: 7621651
The meeting is open to the public, limited only by the conference lines available. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment period, which is tentatively scheduled from 1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
This
The subcommittee will propose strategies and options to the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) on ways to prioritize NCEH/ATSDR's activities, improve health outcomes, and address health disparities as it relates to lead exposures. The subcommittee will deliberate on ways to evaluate lead exposure and how to best conduct health evaluations through exposure and epidemiologic studies. Subcommittee proposals on lead prevention practices and national lead poisoning prevention efforts will be provided to the Board of Scientific Counselors for deliberation and possible adoption as formal recommendations to NCEH/ATSDR.
Agenda items will include the following: A discussion on the blood lead testing and health surveillance strategies for the residents of Flint, Michigan.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F–45, Chamblee, Georgia 30345; telephone 770/488–0575, Fax: 770/488–3377; Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information and comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, announces the availability of draft procedures pertaining to classifications referred to the NIOSH Respiratory Health Division (RHD) by the Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, for quality assurance review and corrective measures. The draft, titled,
• DATES:
• ADDRESSES:
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments must be received by April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC–2016–0020 and docket number NIOSH–289, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Eileen Storey, NIOSH, Respiratory Health Division, Surveillance Branch, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV, 26505. Telephone (304) 285–5754 (this is not a toll-free number).
In 2015, NIOSH and the DOL Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
To implement the MOU, NIOSH has developed a draft quality assurance review procedure entitled,
NIOSH seeks comment from B Readers and other interested parties on the draft procedure. All comments submitted will be considered; the final version of this procedure will be published on the NIOSH Web site.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Monitoring and Reporting System for DELTA FOCUS Awardees (OMB Control No. 0920–0968, Expires May 31, 2016)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This is a revision request for three years for the currently approved OMB Control Number 0920–0968, with an expiration date of May 31, 2016. This request is to extend the time and slightly reduce burden.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans and results in serious consequences for victims, families, and communities. IPV occurs between two people in a close relationship. The term “intimate partner” describes physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. IPV can impact health in many ways, including long-term health problems, emotional impacts, and links to negative health behaviors. Given these factors, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401) provides an important opportunity for the advancement of public health and reduction of IPV. Support and guidance for programs addressing IPV have been provided through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance administered by CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). NCIPC will continue collecting information needed to monitor cooperative agreement programs funded under Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States (DELTA FOCUS).
Information to be collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring and provide CDC with the capacity to respond in a timely manner to requests for information about the program from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House, Congress, and other sources. Awardees will report progress and activity information to CDC on an annual schedule using the Program Management Information System (PMIS) consisting of fillable electronic templates and submitted via Grant Solutions. CDC will use the information collected to monitor each awardee's progress and to identify facilitators and challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes. Monitoring allows CDC to determine whether an awardee is meeting performance goals and to make adjustments in the type and level of technical assistance provided to them, as needed, to support attainment of their objectives. CDC's monitoring and evaluation activities also allow CDC to provide oversight of the use of federal funds, and to identify and disseminate information about successful prevention and control strategies implemented by awardees.
Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. The estimated annual burden hours are 60. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP).
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the re-establishment of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Comments are invited on all portions of this notice. The effective date of the Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) is April 2, 2016, provided that the following review periods have lapsed: thirty (30) days from the date CMS publishes a Notice of Computer Matching in the
The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Enterprise Information, CMS, Room N1–24–08, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m., Eastern Time zone.
Elizabeth Kane, Acting Director, Verifications Policy & Operations Division, Eligibility and Enrollment Policy and Operations Group, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, CMS, 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Office Phone: (301) 492–4418, Facsimile: (443) 380–5531, E-Mail:
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100–503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;
3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,
5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
This matching program meets the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
“Computer Matching Agreement between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for the Verification of United States Citizenship and Immigration Status Data for Eligibility Determinations”
Unclassified
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Sections 1411 and 1413 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) (collectively, the ACA) require the Secretary of HHS to establish a program for determining eligibility for certain state health subsidy programs, and certifications of Exemption; and authorize use of secure, electronic interfaces and an on-line system for the verification of eligibility.
The purpose of the Computer Matching Agreement is to re-establish the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which USCIS will provide records, information, or data to CMS under the ACA. CMS will access USCIS data needed to make eligibility determinations in its capacity as a Federally-facilitated Exchange, and state agencies that administer Medicaid, a Basic Health Program, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, and State-based Exchanges will receive the results of verifications using USCIS data accessed through CMS Data Services Hub to make eligibility determinations.
Data will be matched by CMS for the purpose for determining eligibility for enrollment in state health subsidy programs and eligibility determinations for exemptions. Specifically, USCIS will provide CMS with electronic access to immigrant, nonimmigrant, and naturalized or derived citizen status information contained within or accessed by the USCIS Verification Information System. Access to this information will assist CMS in determining whether an applicant is lawfully present, a qualified non-citizen, a naturalized or derived citizen, and whether the 5 year bar applies and has been met in order to determine eligibility for the previously mentioned programs.
The matching program will be conducted with data maintained by CMS in the Health Insurance Exchanges System (HIX), CMS System No. 09–70–0560, as amended, published at 78 FR 8538 (Feb. 6, 2013), 78 FR 32256 (May 29, 2013) and 78 FR 63211 (October 23, 2013).
The matching program will also be conducted with data maintained by DHS in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) System of Records Notice (SAVE SORN): DHS/USCIS–004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records Notice, 77 FR 47415 (August 8, 2012).
The effective date of the CMA is April 2, 2016, provided that the following review periods have lapsed: thirty (30) days from the date CMS publishes a Notice of Computer Matching in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP).
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the re-establishment of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury.
The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Enterprise Information, CMS, Room N1–24–08, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m., Eastern Time zone.
Elizabeth Kane, Acting Director, Verifications Policy & Operations Division, Eligibility and Enrollment Policy and Operations Group, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, CMS, 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, Office Phone: (301) 492–4418, Facsimile: (443) 380–5531, E-Mail:
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100–503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;
3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,
5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
This matching program meets the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
“Computer Matching Agreement between the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, for the Verification of Household Income and Family Size for Insurance Affordability Programs and Exemptions”
Unclassified
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Sections 1411 and 1413 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) (collectively, the ACA) require the Secretary of HHS to establish a program for determining eligibility for certain state health subsidy programs, and certifications of exemption; and authorize use of secure, electronic interfaces and an on-line system for the verification of eligibility.
Section 1414 of the ACA amended 26 U.S.C. § 6103 to add paragraph (l)(21), which authorizes the disclosure of certain items of return information as part of the Eligibility Determination process for enrollment in the following state health subsidy programs: advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) under Sections 1401, 1411 and 1412 of the ACA; cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) under Section 1402 of the ACA; Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), under titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act, pursuant to Section 1413 of the ACA; or a State's Basic Health Program (BHP), if applicable, under Section 1331 of the ACA.
The purpose of the Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) is to re-establish the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures governing the disclosures of return information by IRS to CMS and by CMS to entities administering Medicaid, CHIP, or Basic Health Programs, and state-based Exchanges (also, called Marketplaces) through the CMS Data Services Hub to support the verification of household income and family size for an applicant receiving an eligibility determination under the ACA.
Return information will be matched by CMS in its capacity as the Federally-facilitated Exchange (also, known as the Federally-facilitated Marketplace) or by an administering entity for the purpose of determining eligibility for state health subsidy programs (APTC, CSR, Medicaid, CHIP or a BHP). Return information will also be matched for determining eligibility for certain certificates of exemption.
The matching program will be conducted with data maintained by CMS in the Health Insurance Exchanges System (HIX), CMS System No. 09–70–0560, as amended, published at 78
The matching program will also be conducted with specified Return Information maintained by IRS in the Customer Account Data Engine (CADE) Individual Master File, Treasury/IRS 24.030, published at 77 FR 47948 (August 10, 2012).
The effective date of the CMA is April 2, 2016, provided that the following review periods have lapsed: Thirty (30) days from the date CMS publishes a Notice of Computer Matching in the
Administration for Native Americans, ACF, HHS.
Notice for Public Comment; Correction.
The Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Native Americans (ANA), published a notice for public comment in the
The deadline for receipt of comments is 15 days from publication of this Notice for Public Comment; Correction in the
Send comments in response to this correction notice via email to Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, ANA, at
Carmelia Strickland, Director, Division of Program Operations, ANA, (877) 922–9262.
In the
D. Changes to Evaluation Criteria for All FOAs FOA (
1. Changes to Evaluation Criteria Maximum Point Values: In all FY 2016 FOAs, except the Native Youth I–LEAD FOA (HHS–2016–ACF–ANA–NC–1167), ANA proposes to adjust the maximum point values of evaluation criteria to prioritize the elements that are important to project monitoring and project success. ANA intends to add five points to the value for the Approach Criterion for a maximum point value of 35. The point value for the Objective Work Plan (OWP) criterion will be reduced by five points for a maximum point value of 20 points.
ANA proposes to use the following maximum point values for criteria in all FY 2016 FOAs, except the Native Youth I–LEAD FOA:
The remainder of Section D. is correct.
Section “E. Change to Recipient Reporting Requirements for All FOAs (FOA
E. Proposed Evaluation Criteria for the Native Youth I–LEAD (FOA
1. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria will offer up to five Bonus Points for applications that include letters of support from community-based youth that describe how they were involved in the planning of the proposed project and how they will continue their involvement in the project's implementation.
ANA proposes to use the following maximum point values for criteria in the Native Youth I–LEAD FOAs:
Submission of an OWP form will not be required of Native Youth I–LEAD applicants therefore there will not be an evaluation criterion related to the OWP.
2. In the evaluation of Native Youth I–LEAD applications, ANA intends to include youth ages 18 to 25 as objective reviewers and subject matter experts. As applicable to all objective reviewers, youth reviewers will also be subject to conflict of interest requirements and confidentiality certification.
3. In scoring each section of a Native Youth I–LEAD application, objective reviewers will use the scales in the following table. Each criterion has five reference guides. Reviewers will assign a score within the range between the minimum and maximum possible points for each criterion.
Section F. Relocation of ANA Offices is changed to F. Change to Recipient Reporting Requirements for All FOAs (FOA
Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Mr. Rakesh Raghuwanshi at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the March 1, 2016, meeting of the Science Board. Because the Agency believes there is some urgency to bring these issues to public discussion and qualified members of the Science Board were available at this time, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs concluded that it was in the public interest to hold this meeting even if there was not sufficient time for the customary 15-day public notice.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is soliciting applications from regulated tobacco product manufacturers to participate in a voluntary pilot program to help CTP evaluate a potential new portal, the CTP eSubmissions Portal (CTP Portal), that is being designed to improve the process in connection with providing certain regulatory submissions electronically to CTP. CTP plans to accept up to six participants for the pilot program. The pilot program is intended to provide CTP regulatory review staff with an opportunity to evaluate the CTP Portal, including its capability for sending and receiving secure messages and providing information as to the documents submitted to it (for example, receipt date and tracking number).
Interested parties should submit an electronic application to participate in this pilot program by March 2, 2016. We plan to conduct user testing beginning on or about March 18, 2016. See section III of this document for information on applications for participation.
If you are interested in participating in this pilot program, please submit an electronic application to
Ann Staten, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. G402, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111–31) grants FDA important authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Among its many provisions, the Tobacco Control Act created requirements for tobacco product manufacturers and importers, among others, to submit certain regulatory documents and information to FDA, including, but not limited to, new tobacco product applications, documents relating to certain research activities and research findings, and documents relating to tobacco product ingredients, including harmful and potentially harmful constituents. While certain of these documents must be submitted electronically, for others an electronic format for submission currently is not required but is strongly encouraged to facilitate efficiency and timeliness of data submission and management. Also, in June 2013, CTP announced a workshop to obtain public input on topics related to the potential electronic submission of tobacco product applications and other information and opened a docket for public comment on this topic. (For more information about this workshop, please see “Electronic Submission of Tobacco Product Applications and Other Information; Public Workshop; Request for Comments” (78 FR 34393, June 7, 2013).
CTP has reviewed the input received from the comments and other sources and is committed to improving the processes for providing regulatory submissions electronically to FDA. Consequently, CTP is announcing a pilot program to test the functionality of the CTP Portal, an electronic submission and communication tool that should enhance efficiency, communication, and timeliness.
The pilot program to evaluate the CTP Portal is to last approximately 3 months. During the pilot program, CTP staff will be available to answer any questions or concerns that may arise. Pilot program participants will receive training and will be asked to submit regulatory submissions using data provided to them by CTP for testing purposes. Pilot program participants also will be asked to provide written and verbal feedback during their training and after their participation in the pilot program is over. These comments and discussions will assist CTP in its development of the CTP Portal. CTP estimates that each individual participant's involvement should take about 15 hours.
CTP is soliciting applications from regulated tobacco product manufacturers and, in particular, is interested in hearing from small tobacco product manufacturers (STPMs) and tobacco product manufacturers that use an authorized agent.
Applications to participate in the pilot program should be sent electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Point of Care Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio Devices for Monitoring Warfarin Therapy.” The purpose of this workshop is to discuss and receive input from stakeholders regarding approaches to the analytical and clinical validation of point of care (POC) Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) in vitro diagnostic devices for improved clinical management of warfarin therapy in addition to describing the FDA's process for facilitating the development of safe and effective POC and patient self-testing PT/INR devices. The goal of the workshop is to seek and identify potential solutions to address the scientific and regulatory challenges associated with POC PT/INR devices to ensure safety and effectiveness. The public workshop on “Point of Care
The public workshop will be held on March 18, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This public workshop is being rescheduled because of a postponed meeting announced in the
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Rm. 1503 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to:
Rachel Goehe, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 66, Rm. 5533, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240–402–6565, email:
Warfarin, an oral vitamin K antagonist, is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant drug used to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. Warfarin inhibits the synthesis of clotting factors II, VII, IX, and X, in addition to the naturally occurring endogenous anticoagulant proteins C and S. The response of individual patients to warfarin is highly variable because of factors such as diet, age, and interaction with other drugs. As a consequence, it is important that warfarin dosage be tailored individually to maintain clinical benefit. The PT test is used to determine a patient's clotting time, which the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute defines as the time in seconds required for a fibrin clot to form in a plasma sample after tissue thromboplastin and an optimal amount of calcium chloride have been added to the sample. It is well-recognized that a PT result obtained with one test system cannot be compared to a PT result obtained with another test system because of the variety of thromboplastins used in different test systems. Therefore, PT test results are converted into a standardized unit known as the INR, which was adopted by the World Health Organization with the intent to reduce intersystem variation in test results. The INR result is used to monitor patients' response to warfarin.
POC PT/INR devices offer an alternative to laboratory-based testing and venipuncture, enabling a rapid INR determination from a finger stick sample of whole blood. POC devices can be used in a variety of settings including, but not limited to, physician's office laboratory, anti-coagulation clinic, patient bedside, hospital emergency department, and prescription home use. The purpose of POC PT/INR testing is to monitor warfarin and to provide immediate information to physicians about the patient's anticoagulation
This public workshop will consist of presentations covering the topics listed in this document. Following the presentations, there will be a moderated panel discussion where participants will be asked to provide their perspectives. The workshop panel discussion will focus on identifying potential solutions to address the scientific and regulatory challenges associated with POC PT/INR devices. In advance of the meeting, FDA plans to post a discussion paper outlining FDA's current thinking on the various topics mentioned in the following list, and invite comment on this from the community.
Topics to be discussed at the public workshop include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Current regulatory process involved with the clearance of POC PT/INR devices.
• Current benefit/risk balance of POC PT/INR devices.
• Technological differences amongst marketed POC PT/INR devices, advantages and limitations of each technology, and comparability of test results obtained using different technologies.
• Challenges associated with correlating results from whole blood POC PT/INR devices to conventional plasma-based laboratory tests.
• Appropriate study design for validation and usability studies from the perspectives of the Agency, manufacturers and end users to help improve our understanding of the accuracy, reliability and safety of POC PT/INR devices.
• Types of quality control and the test system elements assessed by the controls.
• Challenges associated with different sample matrices (venous, fingerstick, arterial).
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, 301–796–5661, email:
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), at the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant to Altra Tech, Ltd. (“AltraTech”), a company incorporated under the laws of the Ireland, having an office in Shannon, Ireland, an exclusive patent commercialization license to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications: US Provisional Patent Application No.60/846,354, entitled, “(S,S)-trans-1,2-cyclopentane Diamine-modified and Gamma-lysine-modified Peptide Nucleic Acids as Probes for Nucleic Acid Detection: Synthesis and Applications,” filed 22 Sep 2006 [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/0–US–01]; US Provisional Patent Application No. 60/896,667, entitled, “Synthesis of Trans-tert-butyl-2-aminocyclopentylcarbamate,” filed 23 Mar 2007 [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/1–US–01]; International Application PCT/US2007/020466, entitled, “Synthesis of Trans-tert-butyl-2-aminocyclopentylcarbamate,” filed 21 Sep 2007 [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/2–PCT–01]; US Patent Application No. 12/441,925, filed 21 Sep 2007, [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/2–US–02]; US Patent Application No. 12/409,159, entitled, “Cross-Coupled Peptide Nucleic Acids for Detection of Nucleic Acids of Pathogens,” filed 23 Mar 2009 [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/3–US–01]; US Patent No. 9,156,778, entitled, “Cross-Coupled Peptide Nucleic Acids for Detection of Nucleic Acids of Pathogens,” issued 13 Oct 2015 [HHS Ref No. E–308–2006/3–US–02]; US Provisional Patent Application No. 61/684,354, entitled, Cyclopentane-peptide Nucleic Acids for Qualitative and Quantitative Detection of Nucleic Acids,” filed 17 Aug 2012 [HHS Ref No. E–260–2012/0–US–01]; International Application PCT/US2013/055252, filed 16 Aug 2013 [HHS Ref No. E–260–2012/0–PCT–02]; European Patent Application No. 13753962.3, filed 11 Feb 2015, [HHS Ref No E–260–2012/0–EP–03]; Korea Patent Application No. 10–2015–7006286, filed 11 Mar 2015, [HHS Ref No E–260–2012/0–KR–04]; US Patent Application No. 14/421,732, filed 13 Feb 2015, [HHS Ref No E–260–2012/0–US–05]; US Provisional Patent Application No. 61/333,442, filed 11 May 2010, [HHS Ref No E–129–2010/0–US–01]; International Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/036090, filed 11 May 2011, [HHS Ref No. E–129–2010/0–PCT–02]; European Patent Application No. 11721899.0, filed 11 May 2011, [HHS Ref No. E–129–2010/0–EP–03]; and US Patent Application No. 13/697,123, filed 9 Nov 2012, [HHS Ref No. E–129–2010/0–US–04].
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. AltraTech is seeking a worldwide territory for this license. The field of use may be limited to exclusive use of the licensed patent rights limited to the development and sale of
Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the Technology Advancement Office, NIDDK, on or before March 3, 2016 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting
These technologies, and the corresponding patent applications, are directed to cyclopentane-peptide nucleic acids (PNA) and their use in qualitative and quantitative detection of nucleic acids. The technologies overcome a stability problem and sensitivity to outside contamination that is inherent to PCR-based detection systems, wherein the PNA probes bind to DNA with greater stability and selectivity compared to a complementary DNA sequence.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the Technology Advancement Office, NIDDK, receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Properly filed competing applications for a license in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625–0040, Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Application for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Applications for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate for Entry Level Ratings, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other Convictions, Merchant Mariner Medical Certificates, Recognition of Foreign Certificate. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 18, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2015–0694] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG–2015–0694], and must be received by March 18, 2016.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 62079, October 15, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed Notice; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for St. Clair County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas.
This withdrawal is effective February 17, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1453, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
On December 11, 2014, FEMA published a proposed notice at 79 FR 73621, proposing flood hazard determinations for St. Clair County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On October 27, 2015, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2016.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1539, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 80 FR 65789 in the October 27, 2015, issue of the
In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of April 19, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472–3100, or email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
The HSGP is a primary funding mechanism for building and sustaining national preparedness capabilities. The HSGP is comprised of three separate grant programs: the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). Together, these grants fund a range of preparedness activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and management and administration costs. The OPSG will begin to utilize the Office of Management and Budget's web-based portal MAX.GOV, at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice; correction.
On September 2, 2015, the Federal Emergency Mangement Agency (FEMA) published in the
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the communities that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for the communities are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository addresses listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for the communities are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for the communities in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository addresses where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the communities are required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the communities must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The communities may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for the communities are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository addresses listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for the communities are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
In the notice published at 80 FR 53172–53173, the table contained inaccurate information for the associated effective date of modification featured in the table. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information to address this prior error. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2016.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1546, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies will be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of 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: Anna P. Guido, 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
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for renewal of 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 comments in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before [March 18, 2016. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the locations listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import 10 live captive-bred specimens of black caiman (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples collected from wild hawksbill sea turtle (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: South American tapir (
The applicant requests a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of two male bontebok (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests an amendment to their permit to photograph northern sea otters (
The applicant requests a permit to take one non-releasable male Pacific walrus (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 29, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before March 18, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
The regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 21.47 (Aquaculture Depredation Order) authorize landowners, operators, and tenants (or their employees or agents) actually engaged in the commercial, Federal, or State production of freshwater aquaculture stocks and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (APHIS–Wildlife Services) in 13 States to take double-crested cormorants when the birds are found committing or about to commit depredations on commercial freshwater aquaculture stocks. The regulations at 50 CFR 21.48 (Public Resource Depredation Order) authorize State fish and wildlife agencies, APHIS–Wildlife Services, and federally recognized tribes in 24 States to take double-crested cormorants to prevent depredations on the public resources of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
Both 50 CFR 21.47 and 21.48 impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on those operating under the depredation orders. We use the information collected to:
• Help assess the impact of the depredation orders on double-crested cormorant populations.
• Protect nontarget migratory birds or other species.
• Ensure that agencies and individuals are operating in accordance with the terms, conditions, and purpose of the orders.
• Help gauge the effectiveness of the orders at mitigating cormorant-related damages.
On September 30, 2015, we published in the
• The Service does not have a mechanism in place to evaluate the validity of the data submitted. Instead, the Service relies on the integrity of others to submit reliable data.
• There is no systematic evaluation of control programs and the system continues to proceed based on faith that what is being done is accomplishing some kind of benefit.
We appreciate these comments because they recognize the importance of collecting sufficient information to allow the Service to do its important job
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB and us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is scheduled to meet as indicated below.
The Southwest RAC meeting will be held on March 18, 2016, in Ridgway, Colorado.
The Southwest RAC meeting will be held March 18 at the Ouray County Fairgrounds Building, 22739 Highway 550, Ridgway, CO 81432. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. A public comment period regarding matters on the agenda will be held at 2 p.m.
Shannon Borders, Public Affairs Specialist, 970–240–5300; 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Southwest RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado. Topics of discussion for all Southwest RAC meetings may include field manager and working group reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management and other issues as appropriate. These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review (1) an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 43) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainants' motion to terminate the remand investigation with respect to certain products and (2) a remand ID. The Commission has set a schedule for filing written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion of this investigation to April 12, 2016.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. 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 at
The Commission instituted investigation No. 337–TA–928,
On November 21, 2014, the Commission instituted a Section 337 investigation No. 337–TA–937,
On December 9, 2014, the ALJ consolidated investigations 337–TA–928 and 337–TA–937.
The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of section 337 was held in July of 2015. On October 22, 2015, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 with respect to certain claims of the `798 patent.
On December 21, 2015, the Commission issued a notice (“Commission Notice”) in which the Commission determined as follows:
(1) To review the ALJ's determination in Order No. 36 (Jul. 16, 2015) precluding arguments and evidence relating to Trico's 618 and 596 connectors on the basis that they are obsolete and are irrelevant to the present investigation,
(2) To review the ALJ's finding that Valeo's indirect infringement claims are moot and, on review, to vacate it. The Commission finds it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether Trico induced infringement of the `798 patent with respect to the accused products considered by the ALJ because the Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's finding that Trico directly infringes the `798 patent.
(3) To review the ALJ's finding that Valeo established quantitatively and qualitatively significant investment in plant and equipment and thus satisfies economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under subsection (A) of section 337(a)(3) and, on review, to take no position with respect to this finding.
(4) To review the final ID with respect to footnote 7 on page 17 and, on review, to modify the subject footnote by striking its second sentence.
On January 7, 2016, complainants Valeo moved to terminate the Remand Investigation with respect to Trico's products with 618 and 596 connectors. In its motion, Valeo states that it has withdrawn its assertion of infringement of the asserted patents against such products. On January 11, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 43) granting Valeo's unopposed motion.
On the same day, the ALJ issued a Remand ID. The ALJ stated that in view of Order No. 43 granting Complainants' motion to terminate the Remand Investigation with respect to Trico's products with the 618 and 596 connectors, the Commission's Remand Order dated December 21, 2015, directing the ALJ to: (1) Make findings regarding whether Trico products with 618 and 596 connectors infringe the Asserted Patents; and (2) issue an ID within 30 days of the Remand Order extending the target date, is moot. Remand ID at 1. No party petitioned for review of any of the subject IDs, and the Commission has determined not to review them. The Commission's determination results in a finding of violation as to the '798 patent. The Commission has determined to extend the target date for completion of this investigation to April 12, 2016.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 18, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: ATF requires licensed manufacturers and importers and persons who manufacture or import explosives materials or ammonium nitrate to submit samples at the request of the Director.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On February 9, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, in a lawsuit entitled
In its Complaint in this civil action, the United States alleges that Michael's
The proposed Consent Decree resolves all civil claims alleged in the Complaint. The proposed Decree requires Michael's to pay a $55,000.00 civil penalty in 2 installments, 30 days and 365 days after the effective date of the proposed Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for the proposed Consent Decree payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 18, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 1 (5320.1).
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other (if applicable): Individuals or households; and State, Local or Tribal Government.
Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to make and register a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of the firearm to the applicant. For any person other than a government agency, the making incurs a tax of $200.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 18, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1
2
3
Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 5 (5320.5).
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4
Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
Other (if applicable): Individuals or Households; Business or other for-Profit; and Not-for-profit institutions.
Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to make and transfer a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. Transfer without approval and possession of an unregistered NFA firearm are illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of a firearm to the transferee. The transferee claims an exemption from the transfer tax by filing this application.
5
6
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 18, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 4 (5320.4)
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other (if applicable): Individuals or households; and Not-for-profit institutions.
Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to transfer and register a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. A transfer without approval and possession of an unregistered NFA firearm are illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of a firearm to the transferee. There is a tax of $5 or $200 on the transfer of an NFA firearm with certain exceptions (see ATF Forms 3 and 5 for tax exempt transfer information).
5.
6.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of OJP's Science Advisory Board (“the Board”). This meeting is the rescheduled meeting for the event originally planned for January 22, 2016 which was cancelled due to inclement weather. General Function of the Board: The Board is chartered to provide OJP, a component of the Department of Justice, with valuable advice in the areas of science and statistics for the purpose of enhancing the overall impact and performance of its programs and activities in criminal and juvenile justice.
The meeting will take place on Friday, March 24, 2016, from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a break for lunch at approximately 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will take place in the Main Conference Room on the third floor of the Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Katherine Darke Schmitt, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 616–7373 [Note: This is not a toll-free number]; Email:
This meeting is being convened to brief the OJP Assistant Attorney General and the Board members on the progress of the subcommittees, discuss any recommendations they may have for consideration by the full Board, and brief the Board on various OJP-related projects and activities. The final agenda is subject to adjustment, but the meeting will likely include briefings of the subcommittees' activities and discussion of future Board actions and priorities. This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Katherine Darke Schmitt at the above address at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. Persons interested in communicating with the Board should submit their written comments to the DFO, as the time available will not allow the public to directly address the Board at the meeting. Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Ms. Darke Schmitt at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the meeting.
12:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 26, 2016.
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Closed.
Determination on six original jurisdiction cases.
Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C . 20530, (202) 346–7010.
10:00 a.m., January 26, 2016.
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Open.
Approval of October 6, 2015 minutes.
Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C . 20530, (202) 346–7010.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Announcement of special meeting.
The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) will hold a special meeting on March 4, 2016, in Washington, DC, to consider and make recommendations on OSHA's draft Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines.
NACOSH will meet from 2 to 5 p.m., Friday, March 4, 2016.
NACOSH will meet in Room N–5437A, Conference Rooms A–B, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
OSHA will post in the NACOSH docket, without change, any comments, requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal information that you provide. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
NACOSH will hold a special meeting on Friday, March 4, 2016, in Washington, DC. The purpose of this special meeting is to allow NACOSH to consider and make recommendations on OSHA's draft Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines. Some NACOSH members may attend by teleconference. NACOSH meetings are open to the public.
NACOSH was established by Section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) to advise, consult with and make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the OSH Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory committee of indefinite duration.
NACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102–3), and OSHA's regulations on NACOSH (29 CFR part 1912a).
OSHA transcribes and prepares detailed minutes of NACOSH meetings. OSHA posts the transcripts and minutes in the public docket along with written comments, speaker presentations, and other materials submitted to NACOSH or presented at NACOSH meetings.
All NACOSH meetings are open to the public. Individuals attending NACOSH meetings at the U.S. Department of Labor must enter the building at the Visitors' Entrance at 3rd and C Streets NW., and pass through building security. Persons attending the meeting must have valid government-issued photo identification (
Individuals requesting special accommodations to attend the NACOSH meeting and requesting to attend the meeting by teleconference should contact Ms. Jameson.
Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular mail may experience significant delays. For information about security procedures for submitting materials by hand delivery, express mail, and messenger/courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office.
• The amount of time requested to speak;
• The interest you represent (
• A brief outline of the presentation.
PowerPoint presentations and other electronic materials must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010 formats. The NACOSH Chair may grant requests to address NACOSH as time and circumstances permit.
OSHA also places in the NACOSH docket meeting transcripts, meeting minutes, documents presented at the NACOSH meeting, and other documents pertaining to the NACOSH meetings. These documents may be available online at
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 CFR part 1912a; 41 CFR part 102–3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend and revise the collections of information currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for handling of retaliation complaints filed with OSHA under various whistleblower protection statutes and the procedural regulations described in this notice. These regulations contain procedures employees must use to file a complaint with OSHA alleging that their employer violated a whistleblower protection provision contained in certain statutes that generally prohibit retaliatory action by employers against employees who engage in activities protected by the statutes. The collections of information include revisions to the form for employees to submit retaliation complaints to OSHA, including electronic submission.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by April 18, 2016.
MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–4624, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2199; email
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Agency is responsible for investigating alleged violations of “whistleblower” provisions contained in a number of statutes. These whistleblower provisions generally prohibit retaliation by employers against employees who report alleged violations of certain laws or regulations. Accordingly, these provisions prohibit an employer from discharging or taking any other retaliatory action against an employee because the employee engages in any of the protected activities specified by the whistleblower provisions of the statutes. These statutes are covered under the following regulations: 29 CFR part 24, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints under the Employee Protection Provisions of Six Environmental Statutes and Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, As Amended (29 CFR part 24 covers the: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j–9(i); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9610); 29 CFR part 1977, Discrimination Against Employees Exercising Rights under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 CFR part 1977 covers the: Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660; Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. 2651; and International Safe Container Act, 46 U.S.C. 80507); 29 CFR part 1978, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints under the Employee Protection Provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; 29 CFR part 1979, Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints Under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century; 29 CFR part 1980, Procedures for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002); 29 CFR part 1981, Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety and Improvement Act of 2002; 29 CFR part 1982, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under the National Transit Systems Security Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act; 29 CFR part 1983, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 219 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008; 29 CFR part 1984, Procedures for Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act; 29 CFR part 1985, Procedures for Handling Retaliation Complaints Under the Employee Protection Provision of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010; 29 CFR part 1986, Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under the Employee Protection Provision of the Seaman's Protection Act (SPA), as Amended; and 29 CFR part 1987, Procedures for Handling Retaliation Complaints Under Section 402 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
In addition, OSHA investigates complaints of retaliation filed under the recently-enacted whistleblower provision Section 31307 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, 49 U.S.C. 30171. This statutory provision is included in the existing ICR. Collections of information contained in future regulations promulgated by the Agency with respect to a whistleblower provision of any other Federal law, except those that are assigned to another DOL agency, will be added to this information collection.
OSHA's whistleblower regulations specify the procedures that an employee must use to file a complaint alleging that their employer violated a whistleblower provision for which the Agency has investigative responsibility. Any employee who believes that such a violation occurred may file a complaint, or have the complaint filed on their behalf. Two of these regulations, 29 CFR parts 1979 and 1981, state that complaints must be filed in writing and should include a full statement of the acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, that the employee believes constitute the violation. The other regulations, 29 CFR parts 24, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1986, and 1987 require no particular form of filing for complaints. However, it is OSHA's policy to accept complaints in any form (
OSHA proposes to revise this ICR to include revisions to the electronic complaint form, titled, “Notice of Whistleblower Complaint” (OSHA8–60.1), that will streamline the process for employees to submit complaints of retaliation to OSHA electronically directly through the Internet. The revisions to the form will not impact workers' ability to electronically submit whistleblower complaints directly to OSHA 24-hours a day, which provides workers with greater flexibility for meeting statutory filing deadlines. Additionally, the revised form includes interactive features which make the form easier for an employee to understand and complete. By streamlining the Agency's electronic complaint filing process, the revised form will reduce the Agency's complaint processing time, which will improve the quality of the customer service that the Agency can offer the public.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on individuals who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB approve the proposed extension and revision of the collections of information contained in OSHA's statutory authorities and the regulations containing procedures for handling retaliation complaints at 29 CFR parts 24, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 3H42, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–0750, fax (202) 358–2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 1–888–995–9162, passcode 2991610, on both days. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109–13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I–9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 2 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC, 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
February 15, 22, 29, March 7, 14, 21, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 15, 2016.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 7, 2016.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 21, 2016.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or email
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective February 1, 2016. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend sections I. E. and G. of the Fee Schedule
Section I.E. of the Fee Schedule describes the Exchange's ACE Program, which features five tiers expressed as a percentage of total industry Customer equity and Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF”) option average daily volume
The Exchange proposes to modify the ACE Program by increasing certain of the credits available for Tiers 2, 3 and 4 as illustrated in the table below, with proposed additions appearing in italics and proposed deletions appearing in brackets:
The proposed amendments to the ACE Program are designed to enhance the rebates, which the Exchange believes would attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange to the benefit of Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.
Section I.G. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the rates for per contract fees and credits for executions associated with a CUBE Auction. The Exchange is proposing to reduce rates for RFR Response fees and Initiating Credits and Rebates. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce RFR Response fees for Non-Customers to $0.12, down from $0.60 for symbols in the Penny Pilot and down from $0.95 for symbols not in the Penny Pilot. The Exchange also proposes to reduce Initiating Participant credits and rebates to $0.05 down from $0.35 for symbols in the Penny Pilot, $0.70 for symbols not in the Penny Pilot and down from $0.12 for the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate.
The proposed changes are designed to address concerns expressed to the Exchange by Market Makers about “imposing oversized transaction fees on market makers (MMs) when they compete with the facilitation side to pre-matched auction crosses,” including the CUBE Auction.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the ACE Program are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would enhance the incentives to Order Flow Providers to transact Customer orders on the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those market participants that do not participate in the ACE Program. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to the ACE Program are consistent with the Act because they may attract greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing tighter quoting and better prices, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to CUBE Auction fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the proposed reductions to both the Initiating Participant Credits (for all issues) as well as the fees associated with RFR Responses that participate in the CUBE are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they apply equally to all ATP Holders that choose to participate in the CUBE, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange likewise believes the proposed reduction of the ACE Initiating Participant Credit is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate is based on the amount of business transacted on the Exchange and is designed to attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange generally, and to CUBE Auctions specifically, which would benefit all market participants (including those that do not participate in the ACE Program) through increased opportunities to trade at potentially improved prices as well as enhancing price discovery. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would continue to incentivize ATP Holders to transact Customer orders on the Exchange and an increase in Customer order flow would bring greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange. Increased volume to the Exchange benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those market participants that do not participate in the ACE Program.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are consistent with the Act because to the extent the modifications permit the Exchange to continue to attract greater volume and liquidity, the proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the ACE Program are pro-competitive as the proposed increased rebates may encourage OFPs to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange and any resulting increase in volume and liquidity to the Exchange would benefit all of Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 31, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Exchange Act section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)
The Commission is extending this 180-day time period. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Rule 204A–1 (17 CFR 275.204A–1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (15 U.S.C. 80b–1
The purposes of the information collection requirements are to: (i) Ensure that advisers maintain codes of ethics applicable to their supervised persons; (ii) provide advisers with information about the personal securities transactions of their access persons for purposes of monitoring such transactions; (iii) provide advisory clients with information with which to evaluate advisers' codes of ethics; and (iv) assist the Commission's examination staff in assessing the adequacy of advisers' codes of ethics and assessing personal trading activity by advisers' supervised persons.
The respondents to this information collection are investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated that compliance with rule 204A–1 imposes a burden of approximately 118 hours per adviser annually for an estimated total annual burden of 1,418,703 hours.
An agency 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 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15a–6 provides conditional exemptions from the requirement to register as a broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o) for foreign broker-dealers that engage in certain specified activities involving U.S. persons. In particular, Rule 15a–6(a)(3) provides an exemption from broker-dealer registration for foreign broker-dealers that solicit and effect transactions with or for U.S. institutional investors or major U.S. institutional investors through a registered broker-dealer, provided that the U.S. broker-dealer, among other things, obtains certain information about, and consents to service of process from, the personnel of the foreign broker-dealer involved in such transactions, and maintains certain records in connection therewith.
These requirements are intended to ensure (a) that the registered broker-dealer will receive notice of the identity of, and has reviewed the background of, foreign personnel who will contact U.S. investors, (b) that the foreign broker-dealer and its personnel effectively may be served with process in the event enforcement action is necessary, and (c) that the Commission has ready access to information concerning these persons and their U.S. securities activities. Commission staff estimates that approximately 2,000 U.S. registered
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 606 (formerly known as Rule 11Ac1–6) requires broker-dealers to prepare and disseminate quarterly order routing reports. Much of the information needed to generate these reports already should be collected by broker-dealers in connection with their periodic evaluations of their order routing practices. Broker-dealers must conduct such evaluations to fulfill the duty of best execution that they owe their customers.
The collection of information obligations of Rule 606 apply to broker-dealers that route non-directed customer orders in covered securities. The Commission estimates that out of the currently 4,240 broker-dealers that are subject to the collection of information obligations of Rule 606, clearing brokers bear a substantial portion of the burden of complying with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Rule 606 on behalf of small to mid-sized introducing firms. There currently are approximately 185 clearing brokers. In addition, there are approximately 81 introducing brokers that receive funds or securities from their customers. Because at least some of these firms also may have greater involvement in determining where customer orders are routed for execution, they have been included, along with clearing brokers, in estimating the total burden of Rule 606.
The Commission staff estimates that each firm significantly involved in order routing practices incurs an average burden of 40 hours to prepare and disseminate a quarterly report required by Rule 606, or a burden of 160 hours per year. With an estimated 266
Rule 606 also requires broker-dealers to respond to individual customer requests for information on orders handled by the broker-dealer for that customer. Clearing brokers generally bear the burden of responding to these requests. The Commission staff estimates that an average clearing broker incurs an annual burden of 400 hours (2000 responses × 0.2 hours/response) to prepare, disseminate, and retain responses to customers required by Rule 606. With an estimated 185 clearing brokers subject to Rule 606, the total industry-wide burden per year to comply with the customer response requirement in Rule 606 is estimated to be 74,000 hours (185 × 400).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments should be directed to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On November 13, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS” or “Exchange”) filed with Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Act”)
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Tick Size Pilot is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of certain small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and to enforce compliance by its members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan.
BATS proposes Rule 11.27(b) to establish the rules necessary for compliance with applicable data collection and transmission requirements of the Plan. In addition, proposed Rule 11.27(b) contains Interpretations and Policies designed to clarify certain aspects of the data collection requirements.
The Exchange proposes Rule 11.27(b)
Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(2) provides that the Exchange shall collect and transmit to the SEC the data described in Items I and II of Appendix B of the Plan relating to trading activity in Pre-
The Exchange proposes Rule 11.27(b)(3) related to daily Market Maker participation statistics to facilitate compliance with Appendix B.IV of the Plan. Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(3)(A) provides that a BATS member that is a Market Maker shall collect and transmit to their Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) data relating to Item IV of Appendix B of the Plan, with respect to activity conducted on any Trading Center in Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities in furtherance of its status as a registered Market Maker, including a Trading Center that executes trades otherwise than on a national securities exchange, for transactions that have settled or reached settlement dates. Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(3)(A)(i) would also require that Market Makers transmit such data in a format required by their DEA by 12:00 p.m. EST on T+4: (i) For transactions in each Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for the Pre-Pilot Period; and (ii) for transactions in each Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(3)(B) provides that the Exchange shall transmit the data collected by the DEA pursuant to Rule 11.27(b)(3)(A) relating to Market Maker activity on a Trading Center operated by the Exchange to the SEC in a pipe-delimited format within 30 calendar days following month end.
The Exchange proposes Rule 11.27(b)(4) related to Market Maker profitability to facilitate the data collection and transmission requirements of Appendix C.I of the Plan. Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(4)(A) requires a BATS member that is a Market Maker shall collect and transmit to their DEA the data described in Item I of Appendix C of the Plan with respect to executions of Pilot Securities on any Trading Center that have settled or reached the settlement date.
The Exchange proposes Rule 11.27(b)(5) related to the daily Market Maker registration statistics to facilitate compliance with Appendix B.III of the Plan. Proposed Rule 11.27(b)(5) provides that the Exchange shall collect and transmit to the SEC the data described in Item III of Appendix B of the Plan relating to daily Market Maker registration statistics in pipe-delimited format within 30 calendar days following month end: (i) For transactions in each Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for Pre-Pilot Period; and (ii) for transactions in each Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
The Exchange proposes Interpretations and Policies under proposed Rule 11.27(b) in order to clarify certain aspects related to the data collection and transmission requirements of the Plan.
Proposed Interpretations and Policy .01 provides that, unless otherwise specified, the terms used in proposed Rule 11.27 shall have the same meaning as provided in the Plan.
Proposed Interpretations and Policy .02 relates to the identification of Retail Investor Orders for purposes of Appendix B.II(n) reporting. The Plan provides that market and Marketable Limit Order Retail Investor Orders shall be identified in a separate field with a “Y/N.” The Exchange proposes in Interpretations and Policy .02 to clarify that, for purposes of the reporting requirement in Appendix B.II(n), a Trading Center shall report “Y” to their DEA for those Retail Investor Orders that rely on the exceptions to Test Groups Two and Three, and “N” for all other instances.
Proposed Interpretations and Policy .03 proposes to include a field, “Affected by Limit-Up Limit-Down bands” for purposes of Appendix B.I. Proposed Rule Interpretations and Policy 03 specifies that a Trading Center shall report “Y” to its DEA when the ability of an order to execute has been affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down (“LULD”) band
In proposed Interpretation and Policy .04, BATS proposes to modify the reporting requirements under Appendix B.I.a(14), B.I.a(15), B.I.a(21) and B.I.a(22).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .05 changes the time of calculating certain data to the time of order receipt, instead of the time of order execution, as currently set forth by Appendix B.I.a(31)–(33).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .06 specifically identifies certain order types for purposes of reporting under Appendix B of the Plan (with numbers for reporting). In particular, not held orders, assigned the number (18); clean cross orders, assigned the number (19); auction orders, assigned the number (20); and orders that cannot otherwise be classified, including orders received when the NBBO is crossed, assigned the number (21) shall be identified in the data reports.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07 sets forth that, for purposes of Appendix B of the Plan, the Exchange would not deem a member to be a Trading Center where that member only executes orders otherwise on a national securities exchange for the purpose of: (i) Correcting a bona fide error related to the execution of a customer order; (ii) purchasing a security from a customer at a nominal price solely for the purposes of liquidating the customer's position; or (iii) completing the fractional share portion of an order.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .08 sets forth that April 4, 2016 is the date a Trading Center must begin the data collection pursuant to the Plan; and that the Exchange or a Trading Center's DEA must provide information to the SEC within 30 days following month end and make certain data publicly available pursuant to Appendix B and C of the Plan shall commence at the beginning of the Pilot Period.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .09 specifies that for purposes of Appendix C.I., Participants shall calculate daily Market Maker realized profitability statistics for each trading day on a daily last in first out (LIFO) basis using reported trade price and shall include only trades executed on the subject trading day.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .10 defines “Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities” as the securities designated by the Participants for purposes of the data collection requirements described in Items I, II, III and IV of Appendix B and Item I of Appendix C of the Plan for the Pre-Pilot Period. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .10 provides that the Participants shall compile the list of Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities by selecting all NMS stocks with (1) a market capitalization of $5 billion or less, (2) a Consolidated Average Daily Volume (CADV) of 2 million shares or less and (3) a closing price of $1 per share or more. The market capitalization and the closing price thresholds shall be applied to the last day of the Pre-Pilot measurement period, and the CADV threshold shall be applied to the duration of the Pre-Pilot measurement period. Further, the Pre-Pilot measurement period shall be the three calendar months ending on the day when the Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities are selected. Finally, the Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities shall be selected thirty days prior to the commencement of the six-month Pre-Pilot Period.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .11 specifies that the effectiveness of proposed Rule 11.27 would coincide with the pilot period for the Plan, including any extensions.
After careful review of the proposal and the comment letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission has previously stated that the Tick Size Pilot set forth in the Plan should provide a data-driven
BATS, as a Participant in the Plan, has an obligation to comply, and enforce compliance by its members, with the terms of the Plan. Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS provides that “[e]ach self-regulatory organization shall comply with the terms of any effective national market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant. Each self-regulatory organization also shall, absent reasonable justification or excuse, enforce compliance with any such plan by its members and persons associated with its members.”
BATS proposes Rule 11.27(b)(1) that provides that a BATS member that operates as a Trading Center must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to meet the requirements under Appendix B.I and B.II of the Plan, and that a BATS member that is a Market Maker must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are that are reasonably designed to meet the requirements under Appendix B.IV and C.I of the Plan.
BATS proposes Rule 11.27(b)(2), related to trading activity in Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities on a Trading Center operated by the Exchange, to meet the data collection and transmission requirements of Appendix B.I and B.II of the Plan. In its comment letter, FIF expressed confidentiality concerns with respect to the possibility that data made publicly available by BATS could potentially be reverse engineered such that the counterparties of a trade could be identified. FIF stated that because some Pilot Securities are thinly traded by a limited number of market participants the identifying characteristics related to the data, even if unattributed, could be discerned.
The Commission notes that the Plan provides for the public dissemination of Tick Size Pilot data but states that “[t]he data made publicly available shall not identify the trading center that generated the data.”
BATS proposed Rule 11.27(b)(3) and (b)(4) related, respectively to (i) daily Market Maker participation statistics to meet the data collection and transmission requirements of Appendix B.IV of the Plan and (ii) Market Maker profitability to meet the data collection and transmission requirements for Appendix C.I and C.II of the Plan.
The Commission finds that proposed Rules 11.27(b)(3) and (b)(4) are consistent with the Act because they will implement provisions of the Plan.
Rule 11.27(b)(5) provides that the Exchange will collect and transmit to the SEC daily Market Maker registration statistics under Appendix B.III of the Plan. The Commission finds that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements provisions of the Plan and enhances the utility of the Tick Size Pilot data.
The Exchange also proposes Interpretations and Policies under proposed Rule 11.27(b) to clarify certain aspects of the data collection requirements in the Plan. The Commission believes that the proposed Interpretations and Policies are consistent with the requirements of the Act, and should further the purpose of the Plan to provide robust, meaningful data that will allow the Commission and the public to evaluate the potential impact of the Tick Size Pilot of the trading and liquidity of Pilot Securities. Further, the proposed Interpretation and Policies should clarify certain aspects of the data collection requirement in the Plan, which in turn could serve to enhance the quality and utility of the Tick Size Pilot data to be collected and analyzed.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 clarifies that terms used in the rule shall have the same meaning as provided in the Plan, unless otherwise specified. The Commission believes that this proposed Rule is consistent with the Act as it clarifies the language of the BATS rule.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .02 clarifies reporting obligations with respect to the Retail Investor Orders under Appendix B.II.(n).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 proposes to add a reporting field to signify whether the ability of an order to be executed has been affected by LULD bands.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 provides that certain data elements should be reported based upon modified time ranges. The proposed rules would add finer increments to the Plan reporting requirements and isolate microsecond and millisecond reporting requirements into separate data elements.
The Commission notes that the proposal merely shifts the time reporting elements into separate reporting lines to accommodate different reporting capabilities.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .05 sets forth that certain data should be calculated at the time of order receipt instead of the time of order execution as currently set forth by Appendix B.I.a(31)–(33). In the Exemption Request, the Participants suggested that the time of order receipt is more consistent with the goal of observing the effect to the Tick Size Pilot on liquidity.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .06 clarifies certain reporting obligations under Appendix B by requiring that certain additional order types (
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07 sets forth circumstances where the Exchange would not deem a member to be a Trading Center for purposes of Appendix B of the Plan. Specifically, this provision sets forth that members that execute orders over-the-counter for the purpose of correcting bona fide errors of customer orders, purchase securities from customers at a nominal price solely for the purposes of liquidating customers' positions or completing a fractional share portion of an order, would not be considered a Trading Center for purposes of Appendix B of the Plan. The Commission finds that this proposal is consistent with the Act as it further clarifies what is required under the Plan. As noted in the Approval Order, the data requirements are reasonably designed to provide measurable data that should facilitate the ability of the Commission, the public, and market participants to review and analyze the effect of tick size on the trading, liquidity, and market quality of Pilot Securities.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .08 sets April 4, 2016 as the date a Trading Center must begin the data collection pursuant to the Plan and sets forth that the Exchange or a Trading Center's DEA must provide information to the SEC within 30 days following month end and make certain data publicly available. In its comment letter, the FIF pointed out a discrepancy as the Notice has language stating that Appendix B and Appendix C data would be published and reported to the SEC by the Exchange or the member's DEA commencing six months prior to the beginning of the Pilot Period but the text of proposed Interpretation and Policy .08 states that such data would be published and reported to the SEC commencing at the beginning of the Pilot Period.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .09 specifies the method by which Participants may calculate daily Market Maker realized profitability statistics. Specifically, the provision would allow an alternative methodology that yields a LIFO-like result as opposed to a LIFO-like methodology required under Appendix C.I.(b) under the Plan. The Commission believes that proposed Interpretation and Policy .09 is consistent with the Act because the proposed calculation result will provide measurable data that is consistent with what was originally sought to be captured under the Plan. Therefore, the proposal will continue to allow analysis of the impact of the Tick Size Pilot on Market Maker Profitability.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .10 defines the term “Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities” for purposes of the data collection requirements under the Plan that are required to begin six months before the Pilot Period. Specifically, BATS proposes to expand the number of securities for which data will be collected during the Pre-Pilot Period to help to ensure there is a complete data set for Pilot Securities when the Pilot Period begins on October 3, 2016. In its comment letter, FIF requested information related to how listing exchanges would disclose Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities.
The Commission finds that the proposal to identify Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities for which Tick Size Pilot data will be collected during the Pre-Pilot Period is consistent with the Act. The Commission understands that it could be costly for Trading Centers to backfill the data requirements to collect the Pre-Pilot Period data if Trading Centers were forced to wait until the list of Pilot Securities is determined as specified under the Plan. Therefore, BATS proposal to establish a slightly broader universe of securities that likely will be subject to the Tick Size Pilot is reasonable for purposes of collecting data during the Pre-Pilot Period. The Commission believes the proposal should help to ensure that there is a complete data set for Pilot Securities when the Pilot Period commences and should help to reduce the cost and complexity of implementing the data collection requirements.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .11 specifies that the rule's effectiveness shall be contemporaneous with the pilot period. Accordingly, the rule will become effective once the Pre-Pilot Period begins.
The Commission finds that BATS proposed rules to implement the Tick Size Pilot data collection requirements, including the Interpretations and Policies, are consistent with the Act. The proposal clarifies and implements the data collection requirements set forth in the Plan.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Partial Amendment No. 2, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of Partial Amendment No. 2 in the
The change to proposed Rule 11.24(b)(4)(A) is of a clarifying, technical nature. The change to proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 clarifies that foreign routing information will only be required for securities that trade in a foreign market. The Commission believes that these changes provide greater clarity on the application of the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601 to 230.610a) exempts from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and BDCs making an offering of securities under Regulation E. Each respondent's reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the burden associated with filing its sales material electronically. The burden of filing electronically, however, is negligible and there have been no filings made under this rule, so this collection of information does not impose any burden on the industry. However, we are requesting one annual response and an annual burden of one hour for administrative purposes. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a quantitative, comprehensive, or even representative survey or study of the burdens associated with Commission rules and forms.
The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the April 19, 2016 meeting of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.
The meetings for April 2016 will be held on the following date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. EST.
These meetings will be held via conference call.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board: SBA Update, Annual Meetings, Board Assignments, Member Roundtable.
The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Alanna Falcone by fax or email. Her contact information is Alanna Falcone, Financial Program Analyst, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202–619–1612, Fax 202–481–0134, email,
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the 3rd quarter meetings of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.
The meetings for the 3rd quarter will be held on the following dates: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. EST; Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. EST.
These meetings will be held via conference call.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board: SBA Update Annual, Meetings Board, Assignments, Member Roundtable.
The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Monika Nixon by fax or e-mail. Her contact information is Monika Nixon, Program Specialist, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202–205–7310, Fax 202–481–5624, email,
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Monika Nixon at the information above.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Highway Administration is issuing this notice to advise the public that FHWA is rescinding its Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. 219 project in Garrett County, Maryland and Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Joy Liang, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, Maryland Division, (410) 779–7148, or email:
A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. 219 project was published in the
The proposed transportation project was along Section 019 of U.S. 219 which extends from the southern terminus of the Meyersdale Bypass in Somerset County, Pennsylvania to I–68 in Garrett County, Maryland. The project was approximately 8 miles with about 2.5 miles in Maryland and 5.5 miles in Pennsylvania.
Due to Federal and State funding constraints, as well as the unlikelihood of adequate funding for all project phases in the foreseeable future, the Notice of Intent is hereby rescinded. A planning study is being undertaken to consider transportation needs in the region.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Announcement of public listening session.
FMCSA will hold an online public listening session concerning the electronic logging device (ELD) compliance test procedures. This meeting will be a forum for providers of ELDs to give feedback to the Agency on the non-binding procedures used to determine if an ELD meets the specifications of the ELD rulemaking published on December 16, 2015. This online meeting is open to the public for its entirety.
Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by February 23, 2016, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA–2016–0054 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Brian Routhier, FMCSA MC–RRT Division,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Brian Routhier, FMCSA MC–RRT Division,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a final rule, Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) and Hours of Service Supporting Documents, on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78292). This rulemaking stated that:
FMCSA will publish compliance test procedures to assist providers in determining whether their products meet the requirements. ELD providers are not required to use FMCSA's compliance test procedures. They may use any test procedures they deem appropriate, but FMCSA will use the compliance test procedures during any investigation and rely upon the results from that testing in making a determination of whether a system satisfies the requirements of [the] rule.
Soon after the publication of the final rule, on January 26, 2016, FMCSA made the compliance test procedures available on the Web site at
This meeting is open to all members of the public. However, FMCSA particularly requests participation from the ELD provider community. An agenda for the meeting is available at
This meeting offers the provider community an opportunity to give input on these voluntary compliance test procedures and share best practices. The discussion will focus solely on the compliance test procedures. As the ELD rule is final, comments about the rule, including the technical specifications, are
FMCSA plans to take this opportunity to ask those providers participating about their own internal testing procedures, as well as their thoughts on the procedures FMCSA has prepared. FMCSA may revise the compliance test procedures based on information received at this listening session.
FMCSA plans to put a record of this meeting in the docket for this notice. The Agency requests that ELD providers and members of the public who cannot participate in this online listening session submit written comments to the docket as soon as practicable. FMCSA plans to docket any written materials it receives during the meeting.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The collection involves an extension to a currently-approved ICR, and includes the assessment of FMCSA's strategic decision to integrate its Information Technology (IT) with its business processes using portal technology to consolidate its systems and databases through the FMCSA Information Technology Services Survey modernization initiative. The information to be collected will be used to assess the satisfaction of Federal, State, and industry customers with the FMCSA Information Technology Services Survey Portal. The name of the “COMPASS Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment,” ICR was previously changed to “Information Technology Services Survey Portal Customer Satisfaction Assessment,” to reflect the need for a broader term than “COMPASS” for the portal. On October 27, 2015, FMCSA published a
Please send your comments to this notice by March 18, 2016. OMB must receive your comments by this date to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2015–0332. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Ms. Katherine Cooper, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202–366–3843 email:
Title II, section 207 of the E-Government Act of 2002 requires Government agencies to improve the methods by which government information, including information on the Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public. To meet this goal, FMCSA plans to provide a survey on the FMCSA Portal, allowing users to assess its functionality. This functionality includes the capability for Federal, State, and industry users to access the Agency's existing safety IT systems with a single set of credentials and have easy access to safety data about the companies that do business with FMCSA. The Information Technology program will also focus on improving the accuracy of data to help ensure information, such as carrier name and address, is valid and reliable.
FMCSA's legacy information systems are currently operational. However, having many stand-alone systems has led to data quality concerns, a need for excessive IDs and passwords, and significant operational and maintenance costs. Integrating our information technologies with our business processes will, in turn, improve our operations considerably, particularly in terms of data quality, ease of use, and a reduction of maintenance costs.
In early 2007, FMCSA's Information Technology program launched a series of releases of a new FMCSA Portal to its Federal, State and industry customers. Over the coming years, more than 15 releases are planned. These releases will use portal technology to fuse and provide numerous services and functions via a single user interface and provide tailored services that seek to meet the needs of specific constituencies within our customer universe.
The FMCSA Information Technology Services Survey Portal will entail considerable expenditure of Federal Government dollars over the years and will fundamentally impact the nature of the relationship between the Agency and its Federal, State, and industry customers. Consequently, the Agency intends to conduct regular and ongoing assessments of customer satisfaction with the Information Technology Services Survey.
The primary purposes of this assessment are to:
• Determine the extent to which the FMCSA Portal functionality continues to meet the needs of Agency customers;
• Identify and prioritize additional modifications; and
• Determine the extent that the FMCSA Portal has impacted FMCSA's relationships with its main customer groups.
The assessment will address:
• Overall customer satisfaction;
• Customer satisfaction against specific items;
• Performance of systems integrator against agreed-upon objectives;
• Desired adjustments and modifications to systems;
• Demonstrated value of investment to FMCSA and DOT;
• Items about the FMCSA Portal that customers like best; and
• Customer ideas for making the FMCSA Portal better.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval, and invites public comment. The Agency's regulations pertaining to the qualification of operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are unchanged and impose no increased information-collection (IC) burden on individual drivers and motor carriers. However, the Agency increases its estimate of the total IC burden of these regulations because both the number of CMV drivers and the frequency of their hiring have increased since the Agency's 2012 estimate of this burden.
We must receive your comments on or before April 18, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA- 2015–0508 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
•
Mr. Robert F. Schultz, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Department of Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone: 202–366–4325. Email:
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [Pub.L. 98–554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2834 (October 30, 1984)] requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations pertaining to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety. These regulations are also issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, and 31502. Part 391 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the minimum qualifications of drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Motor carriers may not require or permit an unqualified driver to operate a CMV. The foremost proof of driver qualification is the information that part 391 requires be collected and maintained in the driver qualification file (DQ file). Motor carriers must obtain this information from sources specified in the regulations (49 CFR 391.51). These include the driver, previous employers of the driver, and officials of the State of driver licensure.
Motor carriers are not required to forward driver qualification information to FMCSA, but must maintain the information in a DQ file. The DQ file of each driver must be made available to State and Federal safety investigators on demand.
The Agency is asking OMB to approve FMCSA's revised estimate of the paperwork burden imposed by its DQ file regulations. The regulations have not been amended; the information-collection (IC) burden imposed on individual drivers and motor carriers by the regulations is unchanged. However, the Agency has increased its estimate of the total IC burden of the DQ-file regulations because both the number of CMV drivers and the turnover rate in their hiring have increased since the Agency's 2012 estimate of this burden. The increase in the number of CMV drivers is partly the result of the Agency being directed by OMB to include intrastate as well as interstate drivers in the population of drivers incurring an IC burden under the DQ file regulations. The Agency had excluded intrastate drivers from its previous estimate, approved by OMB on July 8, 2013, on the ground that drivers who operate exclusively in intrastate commerce were maintaining DQ files pursuant to State, not Federal, law.
(1) “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations” (FMCSRs) are parts 350–399 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (2) “Commercial Motor Vehicle” (CMV) is “a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property, if the vehicle—
(A) has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of at least 10,001 pounds, whichever is greater;
(B) is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation;
(C) is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or
(D) is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under section 5103 of this title and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under section 5103.”
FMCSA requests that you comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information, and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 23, 2016.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2016–0009. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–465, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TEMOANANUIAKIVA is:
INTENDED COMMERCIAL USE OF VESSEL: “Snorkel and sailing day use”
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: “Hawaii”
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2016–0009 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Graco Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), has determined that certain Graco Milestone child restraints
The closing date for comments on the petition is March 18, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
This notice of receipt of Graco's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
S5.5.2 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section shall be stated in the English language and lettered in letters and numbers that are not smaller than 10 point type. Unless otherwise specified, the information shall be labeled on a white background with black text. Unless written in all capitals, the information shall be stated in sentence capitalization. . . .
(g) The statements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2):
(1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the statement “WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,” capitalized as written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order: . . .
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, harnesses, and belt positioning boosters, the first part of the statement regarding attachment by the child restraint attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is optional]. . . .
(1) Graco stated that the noncompliant label provides visual pictograms showing the rear-facing child restraint being secured using the child restraint anchorage system and using a vehicle belt (both with a lap only seat belt and lap/shoulder seat belt). This pictogram is located on the same label just below where the omitted phrase is required to be, and provides the same substance as the language required by FMVSS No. 213.
(2) Graco also stated that in addition to the pictograms that describe how to secure the child restraint in the vehicle using the child restraint anchorage system and the vehicle belt, the printed instruction manual provided with the subject child restraints includes written step-by-step installation procedures. The manual also describes why and how to secure the child restraint in rear-facing and forward-facing modes using the child restraint anchorage system as well as the vehicle seat belt systems. The instruction manual additionally includes multiple prominently placed safety warning regarding the need to secure the child restraint with the child restraint anchorage system or the vehicle seat belt.
(3) Graco stated its belief that the consumers generally understanding that child restraints must be installed/secured a vehicle's seat to be effective. Graco also stated its belief that with respect to labels and instructions, consumers are often drawn first to illustrations and pictograms.
(4) Graco also stated its belief that the absence of the omitted phrase from the label does not affect the crashworthiness of the child restraint system.
Graco has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that future production of the subject child restraints will comply with all applicable labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
In summation, Graco believes that the described noncompliance of the subject child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt Graco from providing recall notification of the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2009–2015 Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-door passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206,
The closing date for comments on the petition is March 18, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
This notice of receipt of AML's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle.
S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.
S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. . . .
(a) AML stated that the subject vehicles can only be double-locked by using the key fob (which also serves as the ignition key) and that if the vehicle is double-locked from the inside, the driver and or passenger will be able to
(b) AML stated that the risks of children being locked in the vehicle by means of the double-locking mechanism, does not pose an unacceptable risk to motor vehicle safety. AML believes that compared to other motor vehicles, AML's vehicles are rarely used to transport children. With the exception of the Rapide and Rapide S models, all Aston Martin vehicles are two-door sports cars.
Moreover, AML states that the double-locking mechanism in the subject vehicles poses no greater risk to children than the child safety locks expressly found to be permitted by FMVSS No. 206.
(c) AML stated its belief that there is little risk that any adults will be locked in its vehicles.
(d) AML stated that in the event a driver were to inadvertently lock a passenger in one of the subject vehicles, the passenger would be able to sound the horn, which would remain functional, allowing the passenger to alert the driver and passers-by.
(e) AML also stated that many of the subject vehicles have motion sensors that would detect the presence of someone in the vehicle as soon as that person moved, and an alarm would sound, which is audible outside the vehicle. Thus, deterring inadvertent lock-ins of both adults and children and would alert passers-by of any passengers locked in the subject vehicles.
(f) AML stated its belief that if an adult were locked in a vehicle, he or she could alert passers-by and would probably be able to contact the driver via mobile communication devices that, in fact, are ubiquitous today and certainly are very likely to be in the possession of the average AML vehicle passenger.
AML also stated that they have not received any complaints regarding the subject noncompliance.
AML additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected the noncompliance in vehicles manufactured from production date December 9, 2015 and will correct the noncompliance in any unsold noncompliant vehicles prior to sale.
In summation, AML believes that the described noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt AML from providing notification of the noncompliances as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that AML no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after AML notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Leveraged Lending.”
Comments must be received by April 18, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0315, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The final guidance stated that financial institutions should have: (i) underwriting policies for leveraged lending, including stress-testing procedures for leveraged credits; (ii) risk management policies, including stress-testing procedures for pipeline exposures; and, (iii) policies and procedures for incorporating the results of leveraged credit and pipeline stress tests into the firm's overall stress-testing framework.
Respondents are financial institutions with leveraged lending activities as defined in the guidance.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the submission to OMB. Comments are requested on:
(a) Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 3 individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on February 11, 2016.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622–2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622–2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, 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).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On February 11, 2016, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following 3 individuals pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. JUAYTHINI, Husayn (a.k.a. ALJEITHNI, Hussein Mohammed Hussein; a.k.a. AL–JU'AITNI, Abu Mu'ath; a.k.a. AL–JU'AYTHINI, Husayn Muhamad Husayn; a.k.a. AL–JU'AYTHINI, Husayn Muhammad; a.k.a. AL–JU'AYTHINI, Husayn Muhammad Husayn; a.k.a. JU'AYTHINI, Husayn Muhammad Husayn); DOB 03 May 1977; POB Al-Nusayirat refugee camp, Gaza; Passport 0363464 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
2. AL–BINALI, Turki Mubarak Abdullah Ahmad (a.k.a. AL BINALI, Turki Mubarak Abdullah; a.k.a. AL–BENALI, Turki; a.k.a. AL–BIN'ALI, Turki; a.k.a. AL–BIN'ALI, Turki Mubarak; a.k.a. “ABU DERGHAM”; a.k.a. “AL–ATHARI, Abu Human”; a.k.a. “AL–ATHARI, Abu Human Bakr ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz”; a.k.a. “AL–ATHARI, Abu-Bakr”; a.k.a. “AL–BAHRAYNI, Abu Hudhayfa”; a.k.a. “AL–MUDARI, Abu Khuzayma”; a.k.a. “AL–SALAFI, Abu Hazm”; a.k.a. “AL–SULAMI, Abu Sufyan”); DOB 03 Sep 1984; POB Al Muharraq, Bahrain; nationality Bahrain; Passport 2231616 (Bahrain) issued 02 Jan 2013 expires 02 Jan 2023; alt. Passport 1272611 (Bahrain) issued 01 Apr 2003; Identification Number 840901356 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
3. AL–ZAHRANI, Faysal Ahmad 'Ali (a.k.a. AL ZAHRANI, Faysal Ahmad Bin Ali; a.k.a. ALZAHRANI, Faisal Ahmed Ali; a.k.a. “AL–JAZRAWI, Abu-Sara”; a.k.a. “AL–SAUDI, Abu Sarah”; a.k.a. “AL–ZAHRANI, Abu-Sarah”; a.k.a. “ZAHRANI, Abu Sara”); DOB 19 Jan 1986; alt. DOB 18 Jan 1986; nationality Saudi Arabia; Passport K142736 (Saudi Arabia) issued 14 Jul 2011; alt. Passport G579315 (Saudi Arabia) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
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 March 18, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
The VA Form 21–0960 series will be used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA will gather medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The Disability Benefit Questionnaire title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21–0960C–3,
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 18, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
The VA Form 21–0960 series will be used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA will gather medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The DBQ title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21–0960C–5, Central Nervous System and Neuromusculo Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of a central nervous system disease; VAF 21–0960C–8, Headaches (Including Migraine Headaches) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of headaches; VAF 21–0960C–9, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; VAF 21–0960G–1, Esophageal Disorders (including GERD, Hiatal Hernia, and Other Esophageal Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any esophageal disorders; VAF 21–0960G–2, Gall Bladder and Pancreas Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any gall bladder and pancreas condition; VAF 21–0960G–3, Intestinal Conditions (Other than Surgical or Infectious) Including Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, and Diverticulitis Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any intestinal conditions unrelated to surgery or infection; VAF 21–0960G–4, Infectious Intestinal Disorders (including Bacterial and Parasitic Infections) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any infectious intestinal condition; VAF 21–0960G–5, Hepatitis, Cirrhosis and other Liver Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any liver condition; VAF 21–0960G–6, Peritoneal Adhesions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of peritoneal adhesions; VAF 21–0960G–7, Stomach and Duodenum Conditions (Not Including GERD or Esophageal Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any stomach or duodenum conditions; VAF 21–0960G–8, Intestinal Surgery (Bowel Resection, Colostomy, Ileostomy) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any surgical intestinal condition; VAF 21–0960H–2, Rectum and Anus Conditions (Including Hemorrhoids) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of any rectum or
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 18, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.