Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule; confirmation.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), hereinafter referred to as the Agency, is confirming the interim final rule published in the
Effective June 9, 2016.
Keith Adams, Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1590, Room 5151–S, Washington, DC 20250–1590. Telephone number: (202) 720–9554, Facsimile: (202) 720–0810.
Since the inception of the Broadband Loan Program, the Agency has faced, and continues to face, significant challenges in delivering the program due to the following factors: (1) The significant number of applicants proposing to offer broadband service that are start-ups with limited resources; (2) the continual evolution of telecommunications technology; and (3) the associated higher costs of serving rural communities. With the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), the Broadband Loan Program has been significantly modified, and was suspended while the Agency revised this regulation. Given that the program was unable to operate during the revision, the Agency published an interim rule on July 30, 2015 in the
The Agency appreciates the interest of the commenters and thanks them for their comment submissions.
The Rural Utilities Service did not receive any significant adverse comments during the public comment period on the interim rule, and therefore confirms the rule without change.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1738 which was published at 80 FR 45397 on July 30, 2015, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 99–19–33 for BLANIK LIMITED Models L–13 Blanik and L–13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical Works). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 14, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact BLANIK LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to BLANIK LIMITED Models L–13 Blanik and L–13 AC Blanik gliders. That NPRM was published in the
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:
Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and improper installation causes significant elevator deflection changes.
A review of records since issuance of AD 99–19–33 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD would supersede AD 99–19–13 to add
The FAA is addressing the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders in another AD action.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016).
We reviewed LET Aeronautical Works LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998. The service information describes procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. 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 will affect 124 products 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 AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $11,780, or $95 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 this AD:
(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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14, 2016.
This AD supersedes AD 99–19–33, Amendment 39–11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999) (“AD 99–19–33”).
This AD applies to BLANIK LIMITED Models L–13 Blanik and L–13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical Works), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive, which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead to loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:
(1)
(i) Within the next 3 calendar months after November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99–19–33), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.
(ii) As of November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99–19–33), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.
(2)
(i) Within the next 3 calendar months after July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.
(ii) As of July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA–AD–4–099/98, dated December 30, 1998, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).
(i) LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact BLANIK LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email:
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(6) 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2000–20–12 for EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 14, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2000 (65 FR 61262, October 17, 2000).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders. That NPRM was published in the
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:
To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage attachment fitting which can lead to loss of control of the sailplane. This destruction could be caused due to lower strength of the material used during production.
A review of records since issuance of AD 2000–20–12 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD supersedes AD 2000–20–12 to add the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to the applicability of the AD.
The FAA is addressing the BLANIK LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We identified that we inadvertently included a parts cost for the initial inspection in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016), and we removed that parts cost from this final rule AD action. The basic estimated cost for U.S. operators remains the same. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016).
AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13–005a, dated November 18, 1999. The service information describes procedures for testing the material strength of attachment fitting part number A 102 021N and instructions for contacting the manufacturer for replacement information if necessary. 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 will affect 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $340 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of $1,860 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 this AD:
(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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14, 2016.
This AD supersedes AD 2000–20–12, Amendment 39–11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (“AD 2000–20–12”).
This AD applies to EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct tail-fuselage fittings with insufficient material strength, which if left uncorrected could result in detachment of the tail from the fuselage with consequent loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:
(1)
(i) Within the next 60 days after November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000–20–12), inspect the tail-fuselage
(ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(4) to contact the manufacturer.
(iii) As of November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000–20–12), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2)
(i) Within the next 60 days after July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, P/N A 102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13–005a, dated November 18, 1999.
(ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(4) to contact the manufacturer.
(iii) As of July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA–AD–T–112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 27, 2000 (65 FR 61262, October 17, 2000).
(i) AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13–005a, dated November 18, 1999.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email:
(5) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(6) 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 amends geographic coordinates of Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, under Class C airspace, due to recent surveys of the airport. This action does not change the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 15, 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 online at
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 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 updates the geographic coordinates of Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT.
During a review of the airspace for Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, the FAA identified that the airport's geographic coordinates were incorrect. This action updates the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database for the respective Class C airspace area.
Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 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 C 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 amends Class C airspace at Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, by adjusting the geographic coordinates to reflect recent survey data.
This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
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 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 5–6.5a. 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.
(Lat. 45°48′28″ N., long. 108°32′34″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,700 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Billings Logan International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 4,900 feet MSL to and including 7,700 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Lansing, MI, Class C airspace at the Capital Region International Airport, formerly the Lansing Capital City Airport, by removing a cutout from the surface area that was put in place to accommodate operations at an airport that is now permanently closed. This action also updates the Capital Region International Airport name and geographic coordinates to reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is taking this action to ensure the safe and efficient operations at Capital Region International Airport.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 15, 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 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.
Colby Abbott, 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 a portion of the terminal airspace structure at Capital Region International Airport, Lansing, MI.
On November 27, 2015, the FAA published in the
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
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Capital Region International Airport Class C airspace area by removing the cutout from the Class C surface area that excluded the airspace within a 1-mile radius of the former Davis Airport and the airspace 1 mile either side of the 090° bearing from the former Davis Airport. The exclusion from the Class C surface area was in place solely to accommodate operations at Davis Airport, which closed in 2000 and was removed from the FAA's aeronautical database in 2006. Since the original purpose of the exclusion no longer exists, the FAA is removing the words “. . . excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Davis Airport and excluding that airspace 1 mile either side of the 090° bearing from Davis Airport to the 5-mile radius from Capital City Airport . . .” from the Class C airspace description.
This action also updates the Capital Region International Airport name and geographic coordinates in the Lansing, MI, Class C airspace description to reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. Specifically, this action replaces “Capital City Airport” with “Capital Region International Airport” and replaces “lat. 42°46′43″ N., long. 84°35′15″ W.” with “lat. 42°46′43″ N., long. 84°35′10″ W.”
Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 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 C airspace modification in this action 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. 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 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, 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 5–6.5a. This airspace action consists of modifying Class C airspace area and it 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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Capital Region International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 2,100 feet MSL to and including 4,900 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of Capital Region International Airport.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
In accordance with section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, the U.S.
The rule is effective on October 2, 2016, unless we receive significant adverse comment by July 11, 2016. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013–0019, by any of the following methods:
For information related to the carriages and strollers standard, contact: Rana Balci-Sinha, Director, Division of Human Factors, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville MD 20850; telephone: 301–987–2584; email:
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 110–314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that these standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. On March 10, 2014, the Commission published a final rule issuing a standard for carriages and strollers that incorporated by reference the standard in effect at that time, ASTM F833–13b, with a modification to address potential hazardous openings created by adjustable grab bar/tray and foot rest configurations. 79 FR 13208. The standard was codified in the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1227.
Public Law 112–28. On August 12, 2011, Congress enacted Public Law 112–28, amending and revising several provisions of the CPSIA, including the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. The revised provision sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard upon which the CPSC standard was based is changed.
If an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under this subsection, the Commission must be notified. The statute further provides that the revised voluntary standard shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the Commission under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the date on which the organization notifies the Commission (or such later date specified by the Commission in the
Notification of Revisions. On April 5, 2016, ASTM notified the CPSC of ASTM's approval and publication of revisions to ASTM F833–13b in a revised standard approved on November 1, 2015, ASTM F833–15, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers (ASTM F833–15). As discussed below, the Commission has reviewed the differences between 16 CFR part 1227 and ASTM F833–15.
There are several differences between 16 CFR part 1227 (which references ASTM F833–13b) and the revised version of the standard, ASTM F833–15. We summarize the differences and the CPSC's assessment of the revisions below.
CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of a definition for “convertible car seat/stroller” adds clarity to the revised standard because this definition is used in a revised section regarding performance requirements for combination units of a car seat on a stroller and convertible car seat/stroller. The addition of this definition is neutral regarding safety.
CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of definitions for tray/grab bar locking and stop positions improve clarity to the revised standard because these definitions are used in revised sections for performance requirements and test methods applicable to passive containment/foot openings. The
CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of a separate section repeating the static load requirement adds clarity to the revised standard because the provision is equally applicable to both the performance requirement and test method sections. The addition of this section is neutral regarding safety.
CPSC staff's review shows that adding the exemption for a restraint system that is certified to restrain a child in a motor vehicle is neutral regarding safety because the restraint systems must comply with the FMVSS requirements. In addition, aside from the restraint system, the combination unit of a car seat on a stroller must still comply with all of the other applicable requirements when the car seat is installed in all of the manufacturer's recommended use positions.
CPSC staff's review shows that the revisions improve the safety of the standard set forth in 16 CFR part 1227 to address hazardous openings created by adjustable grab bar/tray and foot rest configurations. In its regulation, the CPSC required that tests be conducted in the position “most likely to cause failure.”
CPSC staff's review shows that the revisions on the warning label requirements improve the safety of strollers. The version referenced in 16 CFR part 1227, ASTM F833–13b, could be interpreted to require warning labels only on jogging strollers with a removable-wheel fork assembly. The 2015 version of the standard clarifies that the warning label requirements apply to: (1) Any stroller with a removable wheel fork assembly for the label that is placed on the front wheel fork; and (2) any three-wheeled stroller intended to be used while jogging, walking fast, or running with a locking front wheel. Accordingly, the revised standard makes clear that all of these types of three-wheeled strollers must display warning labels.
In accordance with Public Law 112–28, the revised ASTM standard for carriages and strollers, therefore, becomes the new CPSC standard 180 days after the date the CPSC received notification of the revision from ASTM. This rule revises the incorporation by reference at 16 CFR part 1227, to reference the ASTM standard, ASTM F833–15.
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Commission concludes that, in the context of these revisions to ASTM standards upon which CPSC's durable infant or toddler product standards are based, which automatically become consumer product standards and that simply would be incorporated by reference into applicable regulatory provisions, notice and comment is not necessary.
Without Commission action to update the incorporation by reference in the CPSC's mandated standards, the standard published in the Code of Federal Regulations will not reflect the revised ASTM standard that will be in effect by operation of law under Public Law 112–28. For accuracy, and to avoid misleading the public about the applicable consumer product standard, the Commission believes that issuing a rule revising the incorporation by reference in these circumstances is appropriate. In Recommendation 95–4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
Revising the regulatory reference to the ASTM standard will conform the regulation to the substantive change in the applicable consumer product standard that will occur by operation of law under Public Law 112–28. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under Public Law 112–28. Therefore, there is little for the public to comment upon.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on October 2, 2016. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains
Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.
Under the procedure set forth in Public Law 112–28, when a voluntary standard organization revises a standard upon which a consumer product safety standard issued under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act was based, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The change to the incorporation by reference in the carriages and stroller standard will not result in any substantive changes to the standard. Therefore, this rule will not have any economic impact on small entities.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
The carriages and stroller standard contain information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). No changes have been made to that section of the standard. Thus, these revisions will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to that standard.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (at section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA) refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.
Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the preceding discussion, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.
Because carriages and strollers are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSIA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (“NOR”) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing carriages and strollers (79 FR 13208 (March 10, 2014)). The NORs provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing carriages and strollers to 16 CFR part 1227 (which incorporated ASTM F833–13b with modifications). The NORs are listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.
The revisions discussed above do not add any new provisions that would require a third party conformity assessment body (testing laboratory) to conduct additional tests. As discussed above, most of the revisions clarify the existing standard and will not change existing test methods. Although the test method associated with passive containment/foot opening has been clarified to require testing depending on the number of adjustments that can be made in the grab bar/tray as well as footrest or calf support positions, the revision is not expected to affect how a test laboratory tests strollers and convertible carriages/strollers in a stroller mode. Revising the reference to ASTM F833–15 for the carriages and stroller standard will not necessitate any change in the way that third party conformity assessment bodies test these products for compliance to CPSC standards. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard also to cover testing to the revised standard. The existing NOR for this standards will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditation to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditation.
The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the ASTM F833–15 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1227. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 USA, phone: 610–832–9585;
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends title 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110–314, 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Public Law 112–28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
Each carriage and stroller shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F833–15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Carriages and Strollers, approved November 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of this ASTM standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 USA; phone: 610–832–9585;
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Interim final rule; request for comment.
We are adopting an interim final amendment to implement Section 72001 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act. The interim final amendment provides that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10–K provided that each item in the summary includes a cross-reference by hyperlink to the material contained in the registrant's Form 10–K to which such item relates.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
N. Sean Harrison, Special Counsel, at (202) 551–3430, in the Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
We are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10–K
We are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10–K that implements Section 72001 of the FAST Act,
Although our current rules do not prohibit a registrant from including voluntary information, such as a
In light of the varied nature of registrants' size and operations, we believe that registrants should have the flexibility to determine how best to prepare the summary. Accordingly, the amendment does not prescribe the length of the summary (other than to state that the summary shall be brief), specify the Form 10–K disclosure items that should be covered by the summary,
We recognize that it might not be practicable or necessary to summarize every Form 10–K disclosure item. The amendment is principles-based and affords a registrant choosing to include a summary the flexibility to decide which items to summarize,
We are also including an instruction in Item 16 of Form 10–K that addresses information incorporated by reference into the Form 10–K that a registrant may choose to summarize. Exchange Act Rule 12b–23 allows registrants to incorporate information by reference in answer, or partial answer, to any item of an Exchange Act registration statement or report subject to certain conditions.
As stated above, the interim final amendment to Form 10–K requires the summary to include hyperlinks to the related, more detailed disclosure item in the Form 10–K, regardless of whether the more detailed disclosure appears in the sections of the Form 10–K that follow the summary or in a Form 10–K exhibit. Currently, registrants can hyperlink to different sections within the same document, as well as to specific sections of exhibits that are part of the same filing.
Therefore, the interim final amendment requires registrants electing to prepare a Form 10–K summary that discusses information that is incorporated by reference into the Form 10–K and for which an exhibit is filed with the form to include a hyperlink from the summary to the discussion in the accompanying exhibit. Under the interim final amendment, a registrant choosing to include a summary will only be able to summarize information that is included in the Form 10–K at the time the form is filed, and will not have to file a Form 10–K amendment to summarize Part III information that is incorporated by reference from a proxy or information statement that will be filed after the date that the registrant files its Form 10–K.
We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on any aspect of the interim final amendment, other matters that might have an impact on the amendment, and any suggestions for further revisions. In addition, we seek comment on the following:
1. Are companies and investors likely to find a Form 10–K summary useful? If so, should we propose mandating a summary?
2. Would it be helpful to EDGAR users for the Form 10–K summary or a link to the summary to be displayed on a registrant's EDGAR search results landing page?
3. Should we impose a length limitation on the summary? If so, what limitation would be appropriate (
4. Should we provide further guidance on preparation of the summary? For example, should we include language similar to Item 503(a) of Regulation S–K, which covers a prospectus summary?
5. Should we require that the summary appear at the beginning of the Form 10–K? Should we require certain content or a specific format for the Form 10–K summary? For example, should we propose to require registrants choosing to prepare a summary to include specified Form 10–K items, such as the MD&A? Are there some items that registrants should not be permitted to include in a summary? If so, which items should be required to be included in, or excluded from, the summary?
6. Should we require registrants that cannot include a summary of the Part III information (because that information will be incorporated by reference from a later filed proxy or information statement involving the election of directors) to file a Form 10–K amendment to update the summary to reflect the Part III information when that information is filed with the proxy or information statement?
7. Are there other cross-reference methods that we should allow in lieu of, or in addition to, hyperlinks?
8. Should we propose to amend other annual reporting forms, such as Form 20–F
With respect to any comments, we note that they are of greatest assistance if accompanied by supporting data and analysis of the issues addressed in those comments.
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the
For similar reasons, although the APA generally requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before its effective date, the Commission finds there is good cause for the amendment to take effect on June 9, 2016.
As discussed above, we are amending Form 10–K to implement Section 72001 of the FAST Act. The interim final amendment will provide that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10–K provided that each item in the summary includes a cross-reference by hyperlink to the material contained in the registrant's Form 10–K to which such item relates. Under the amendment, a registrant will have the flexibility to determine the content of the summary and its length.
We are sensitive to the costs and benefits of the amendment.
Where practicable, we attempt to quantify the economic effects of the amendment; however, in certain cases, we are unable to do so because we lack the necessary data. We do, however, provide a qualitative assessment of the likely economic effects.
As discussed above, new Item 16 to Form 10–K provides that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10–K provided that each item in the summary includes a hyperlink to the detailed information in the registrant's Form 10–K to which such item relates. In light of the varied nature of registrants' size and operations, the amendment will provide registrants with flexibility in preparing the summary. The amendment does not prescribe the length of the summary, specify the Form 10–K disclosure items that should be covered in the summary, or dictate where the summary must appear in the Form 10–K.
A registrant may decide which items to summarize as long as the information is presented fairly and accurately. A summary should provide more information than a table of contents, which is often included in Form 10–K and generally shows the complete organizational structure of Form 10–K by listing each disclosure item without a summary of the disclosure. A summary with hyperlinked cross-references will allow users to easily locate the corresponding items in Form 10–K where the disclosure is fully presented, with the potential effect of enhancing the ability of investors and other users of the disclosure to process relevant information and/or reducing their processing time and search costs.
The amendment will potentially affect all registrants subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act that are required to file an annual report on Form 10–K. However, given that current rules do not prohibit a registrant from voluntarily including a summary in its Form 10–K, the amendment likely will not have a substantial impact on the disclosure practices of registrants and on the information processing ability of investors and other users of the disclosure.
In particular, we expect that registrants that do not currently include a summary in their Form 10–Ks will not
We estimate that, in calendar year 2015, we received 7,844 Form 10–K filings. To draw a baseline indicative of the current disclosure practices among Form 10–K filers, we selected a random sample of 150 of these filings to review. Although small, the random sample was representative of the overall 2015 population of Form 10–K filers and consisted of 42 large accelerated filers, 29 accelerated filers, 27 non-accelerated filers, and 52 smaller reporting companies. None of the filings in the sample included a summary. A large majority (70%) of the 150 sampled filings included a table of contents that was fully hyperlinked to the corresponding items.
Due to the greater complexity of their operations, larger registrants generally have more extensive disclosures that are reflected in lengthier Form 10–Ks and may be more inclined to include a summary to assist investors and other users in navigating their filings.
There may be several reasons why a summary is not widely used in Form 10–Ks. As with any other voluntary disclosure, registrants presumably weigh the potential incremental disclosure costs, including any liability considerations, against the potential benefits associated with including a summary in a Form 10–K. Among other factors, the perceived net benefit will depend on the presence of alternative disclosures that serve a similar purpose as a summary and on investor interest in such summary. For example, a table of contents may already provide an outline of the Form 10–K and indicate where investors can find additional information in the document.
In conclusion, based on our analysis of two relatively small samples of Form 10–K filings, it appears that the use of a summary in Form 10–Ks is currently extremely limited. While we cannot draw definite conclusions on the current use of a summary or on the current use of hyperlinks in summaries for the entire population of Form 10–K filers due to the size of the samples in our analysis, we believe that the amendment is likely to affect a limited number of Form 10–K filers that currently opt to include a summary in their Form 10–K. As a result of the hyperlink requirement, these filers will need to include a hyperlink for each disclosure topic that is not currently hyperlinked.
As noted above, Section 72001 of the FAST Act directs the Commission to issue regulations to permit registrants to submit a summary on Form 10–K with cross-references to the related discussion in the report. In implementing this mandate, the amendment will provide that registrants may include a summary in their Form 10–K if each item in the summary includes a hyperlink to the related material contained in the Form 10–K to which such item relates. Relative to cross-references that supply users with only a page reference to the specific Form 10–K items, hyperlinks will not only supply the location but also allow users to reach that location more easily and quickly.
By presenting an overview of the information contained in Form 10–K, a summary with hyperlinks could make disclosure more effective by enhancing the ability of investors and other users to process relevant information and/or by reducing their processing time and search costs. A summary can be particularly useful to investors and other users in the case of more complex
Permitting registrants to determine the content, length, and location of a summary will enable them to tailor the format and presentation of the summary to best suit the specific aspects of their business and operational and financial results. It also will enable registrants to focus on topics or items they consider important to communicate to investors, subject to the overall requirement to present the summary fairly and accurately.
While a summary is potentially useful for investors and registrants, registrants who include a summary in their Form 10–Ks will incur increased disclosure costs to prepare the summary. As discussed above, given that Form 10–K filers can already voluntarily include a summary, we expect that, as a result of the amendment, registrants will not significantly change their disclosure practices by electing to include a summary if they currently do not.
Relative to the current baseline, we expect the potential benefits and costs stemming from the amendment to be limited and primarily related to those registrants—and their investors—who already include a summary in their Form 10–K but do not currently hyperlink or hyperlink only in part. Registrants that have voluntarily included a summary in the past and have not hyperlinked the items in the summary to the relevant sections in the Form 10–K will incur compliance costs to add hyperlinks.
There are potential benefits from adding cross-references to the Form 10–K summary. A summary that briefly discusses items in the Form 10–K without any type of cross-references may disconnect the information in the summary from the disclosure contained in other parts of Form 10–K. The required hyperlinks will serve not only as a reminder for investors that a summary complements the more extensive disclosure presented in other parts of the document, but also as a compass for users to navigate the document more easily and quickly. The required hyperlinks will easily direct users to a particular item, allowing users to avoid searching the Form 10–K in its entirety, thereby significantly reducing their search costs.
Relative to other types of cross-references that registrants may currently use, such as a footnote or plain text that points to a certain page number or location in the document, the inclusion of hyperlinks should direct users to relevant parts of Form 10–K more easily and quickly. To the extent that hyperlinks are implemented properly, they are able to automatically take the reader to that document or section. Cross-referencing through hyperlinks should make it easier for users to navigate the disclosure and decrease their search time and costs.
Finally, requiring hyperlinks for all topics in a summary that currently has only partial hyperlinks will prevent registrants from selectively steering investors and other users toward particular sections in the Form 10–K.
We considered three alternatives to the amendment. First, instead of providing registrants with the option of including a summary in their Form 10–K, we could have required all registrants to include a summary. By requiring a summary, investors and users could more extensively benefit from the potential usefulness of the summary. In particular, as discussed above, a summary could enhance investors' ability to process relevant material information in the filing. To the extent that a required summary contains useful and concise information, it could translate to potential positive effects on allocative efficiency for a greater number of registrants than under a voluntary approach. These potential benefits could be particularly relevant in the case of registrants with more complex operations that typically file larger reports that investors may find more time-consuming to read. They may be less relevant in the case of smaller registrants that typically have simpler operations and shorter Form 10–Ks. Consequently, requiring a mandatory summary for all registrants may impose additional compliance costs that are not justified by the overall benefits to investors and registrants, although the flexibility to determine the format of the summary could mitigate these additional compliance costs.
Second, instead of providing registrants with the flexibility to determine length, content, and location of the summary in Form 10–K, we could have prescribed a specific format of the summary. This could achieve consistency across filings and may enable users to compare the summaries of multiple registrants more efficiently. A specific format may also ease the preparation of a summary for some registrants, thereby encouraging them to provide a voluntary summary in their Form 10–Ks. At the same time, prescribing a specific format may discourage registrants from including a summary in their Form 10–K if they find the format not useful for their specific circumstances. Further, if the prescribed format includes sections that are unnecessary to effectively assess the registrant, it could detract from, rather than facilitate, investors' ability to process information efficiently.
Third, instead of requiring hyperlinks, we could have required registrants to use any type of cross-references, electronic or otherwise, to the extent that it would serve the function of locating the corresponding material in the Form 10–K.
Certain provisions of Form 10–K that will be affected by the interim final amendment contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
“Form 10–K” (OMB Control No. 3235–0063).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Compliance with the information
As described in more detail above, we are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10–K to implement Section 72001 of the FAST Act. We are amending Form 10–K to add new Item 16. This new item will explicitly allow a registrant, at its option, to include a summary in the Form 10–K. Each disclosure topic included in the summary is required to contain a hyperlink to the related, more detailed disclosure item in the Form 10–K. Under the interim final amendment, a registrant has the flexibility to determine the content and the length of the summary.
We anticipate that new Item 16 of Form 10–K will increase the burdens and costs for companies that elect to prepare a summary. We derived our burden hour and cost estimates by estimating the average amount of time it would take a registrant to prepare and review the summary, as well as the average hourly rate for outside professionals who assist with such preparation. In addition, our burden estimates are based on several assumptions.
First, we assumed that registrants that elect to prepare a summary will not summarize every item in the Form 10–K. Therefore, to estimate the average burden hours of the interim final amendment, we have looked to the burden estimates carried internally by registrants for Form 10,
Second, we assumed that 10% of Form 10–K filers would elect to prepare a summary. The number of registrants that would choose to do a summary, however, is uncertain. We request comment and supporting empirical data, for purposes of the PRA, on the number of registrants that are expected to prepare a summary as a result of the interim final amendment.
The table below shows the total annual compliance burden, in hours and in costs, of the collection of information resulting from the interim final amendment.
We request comments in order to evaluate: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burdens. Persons who desire to submit comments on the collection of
The amendment contained in this release is being adopted under the authority set forth in Sections 3, 12, 13, 15(d), and 23(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 72001 of the FAST Act.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission is amending Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 78a
Section 249.220f is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 306(a), 401(a), 401(b), 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.240f is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 306(a), 401(a), 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.308 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 80a–29 and 80a–37.
Section 249.308a is also issued under secs. 3(a) and 302, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.308b is also issued under secs. 3(a) and 302, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.310 is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.326(T) also issued under section 13(f)(1) (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)(1)).
Section 249.330 is also issued under secs. 3(a), 406, and 407, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745.
Section 249.331 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78j–1, 7202, 7233, 7241, 7264, 7265; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.
Section 249.617 is also issued under Pub. L. 111–203, § 939, 939A, 124. Stat. 1376 (2010) (15 U.S.C. 78c, 15 U.S.C. 78
Section 249.819 is also issued under 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).
Section 249.1400 is also issued under sec. 943, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376.
Section 249.1800 is also issued under Pub. L. 111.203, § 922(a), 124 Stat 1841 (2010).
Section 249.1801 is also issued under Pub. L. 111.203, § 922(a), 124 Stat 1841 (2010).
The text of Form 10–K does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Registrants may, at their option, include a summary of information required by this form, but only if each item in the summary is presented fairly and accurately and includes a hyperlink to the material contained in this form to which such item relates, including to materials contained in any exhibits filed with the form.
By the Commission.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving respiratory disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The revisions reflect our program experience and advances in medical knowledge since we last comprehensively revised this body system in 1993, as well as comments we received from medical experts and the public.
These final rules are effective October 7, 2016.
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 965–1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We are revising and making final the rules for evaluating respiratory disorders we proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
We are revising the listings for evaluating respiratory disorders to
We will begin to use these final rules on their effective date. We will continue to use the current listings until the date these final rules become effective. We will apply the final rules to new applications filed on or after the effective date of these final rules and to claims that are pending on or after the effective date.
In the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period that ended on April 5, 2013. We received 212 comments. The commenters included advocacy groups, legal services organizations, State agencies that make disability determinations for us, medical organizations, and people who have respiratory disorders or have relatives with respiratory disorders.
We carefully considered all of the comments that were relevant to this rulemaking. We have tried to present the commenters' concerns and suggestions accurately and completely, and we have responded to all significant issues that were within the scope of these rules. We provide our reasons for adopting or not adopting the recommendations in the summaries of the comments and our responses. We also received several comments supporting our proposed changes. We appreciate those comments; however, we did not include them in our discussion of the rules below.
As part of the rulemaking process, we held an informational teleconference with the public on May 10, 2013, during which we discussed general background information on the disability program, information for people with cystic fibrosis who either apply for Social Security disability benefits or are currently receiving disability benefits, information we received from medical experts and members of the public, and proposed criteria in listings 3.04 and 103.04.
In its public comment, the ATS recommended that we continue to require documentation of three acceptable tracings. We agree with that comment.
For most claims involving respiratory disorders and in which spirometry results are available, the evidence we receive usually does not include the spirometry tracings. By requiring tracings, we may need to recontact the medical source to seek the tracings or, if we know from experience that the source either cannot or will not provide the tracings, we may need to purchase consultative examinations to obtain spirometry results with tracings, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. We will provide guidance to our adjudicators on when it is appropriate to purchase a PFT when we conduct training on the final rules.
Additionally, we are able to evaluate chronic respiratory disorders resulting in fewer than three hospitalizations in a consecutive 12-month period using medical equivalence, under other listing criteria, or at other steps in our sequential evaluation process. For example, if a claimant's chronic respiratory disorder does not precisely meet the hospitalization requirements in final 3.02D, we may find that the disorder is medically equivalent to that listing, if the disorder is at least medically equal in severity and duration to the listing criteria. Our medical equivalence rules permit us to find that a disorder is medically equivalent to a listing at step 3 if there are other findings related to the disorder that are at least of equal medical significance to the listing criteria (see §§ 404.1526 and 416.926).
Although some of our listings include criteria for repeated hospitalizations (3.02D, 3.03B, 3.04B, 3.07, 103.02E, 103.03, and 103.04C), our medical equivalence policy accommodates recent trends in clinical care that emphasize quality of, rather than quantity of, medical treatment. The medical equivalence policy also accommodates claimants' varying level of access to medical care (as well as the preference of some medical providers to reduce the use of emergency department and hospital-level medical interventions). This accommodation accounts for differences in medical care people with similar disorders receive depending on the medical resources available to them. The medical equivalence policy provides some flexibility in determining whether a claimant is disabled at step 3 of the sequential evaluation process by allowing us to consider whether the claimant's impairment meets the listed criteria or is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment. The final listings do not provide substantive instructions to our adjudicators for determining such equivalence because we can better provide this information through operating instructions and training
If we are not able to find that a person's impairment due to a chronic respiratory disorder is disabling using our listings, we may still find the person disabled at the final steps of the sequential evaluation process.
In proposed 3.00O and 103.00L, we included guidance explaining that, for listings that require a specific number of events within a 12-month period, the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with the application or continuing disability review. We did not, however, provide a reference to proposed 3.00O and 103.00L in each proposed listing. In these final rules, we include this guidance in each listing (final 3.02D, 3.03B, 3.04B, 3.04F, 3.04G, 3.07, 3.14, 103.02E, 103.03, 103.04C, 103.04G, and 103.14) and, as a result, it is unnecessary to also include the same guidance in the introductory text.
In proposed 3.00D3 and 103.00D3, we included a requirement that pulmonary function testing be conducted in accordance with the most recently published standards of the ATS. We do not include this statement in these final rules because we now include in final 3.00E and 103.00E (for spirometry) and in final 3.00F (for DLCO) the specific ATS testing standards that we require to evaluate respiratory disorders. The ATS may revise its testing standards at any time, in which case we would review any new standards and, if appropriate, publish proposed changes to our requirements for public comment before revising the rules.
In these final rules, we are redesignating current 103.00F as 103.00K and revising the reference to 103.00F in listing 103.06 to 103.00K. We are not revising the introductory text or the listing requirements, both of which we added to the respiratory body system in 2015.
The Act authorizes us to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to implement them. Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1) of the Act.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed them.
We certify that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
The revisions read as follows:
4. Respiratory Disorders (3.00 and 103.00): October 7, 2019.
3.00 Respiratory Disorders.
A.
1. We evaluate respiratory disorders that result in obstruction (difficulty moving air out of the lungs) or restriction (difficulty moving air into the lungs), or that interfere with diffusion (gas exchange) across cell membranes in the lungs. Examples of such disorders and the listings we use to evaluate them include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema, 3.02), pulmonary fibrosis and pneumoconiosis (3.02), asthma (3.02 or 3.03), cystic fibrosis (3.04), and bronchiectasis (3.02 or 3.07). We also use listings in this body system to evaluate respiratory failure (3.04D or 3.14), chronic pulmonary hypertension (3.09), and lung transplantation (3.11).
2. We evaluate cancers affecting the respiratory system under the listings in 13.00. We evaluate the pulmonary effects of neuromuscular and autoimmune disorders under these listings or under the listings in 11.00 or 14.00, respectively.
B.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
D.
1. We need
2. If you use
3.
4.
E.
1. Spirometry, which measures how well you move air into and out of your lungs, involves at least three forced expiratory maneuvers during the same test session. A forced expiratory maneuver is a maximum inhalation followed by a forced maximum exhalation, and measures exhaled volumes of air over time. The volume of air you exhale in the first second of the forced expiratory maneuver is the FEV
2. We have the following requirements for spirometry under these listings:
a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. Examples of when we would not consider you to be medically stable include when you are:
(i) Within 2 weeks of a change in your prescribed respiratory medication.
(ii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, a lower respiratory tract infection.
(iii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, an acute exacerbation (temporary worsening) of a chronic respiratory disorder. Wheezing by itself does not indicate that you are not medically stable.
(iv) Hospitalized, or within 30 days of a hospital discharge, for an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).
b. During testing, if your FEV
c. Your forced expiratory maneuvers must be satisfactory. We consider a forced expiratory maneuver to be satisfactory when you exhale with maximum effort following a full inspiration, and when the test tracing has a sharp takeoff and rapid rise to peak flow, has a smooth contour, and either lasts for at least 6 seconds or maintains a plateau for at least 1 second.
3. The spirometry report must include the following information:
a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.
b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).
c. Legible tracings of your forced expiratory maneuvers in a volume-time format showing your name and the date of the test for each maneuver.
4. If we purchase spirometry, the medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.
F.
1. A DLCO test measures the gas exchange across cell membranes in your lungs. It measures how well CO diffuses from the alveoli (air sacs) of your lungs into your blood. DLCO may be severely reduced in some disorders, such as interstitial lung disease (for example, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis, and sarcoidosis) and COPD (particularly emphysema), even when the results of spirometry are not significantly reduced. We use the average of two of your unadjusted (that is, uncorrected for hemoglobin concentration) DLCO measurements reported in mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02C1.
2. We have the following requirements for DLCO tests under these listings:
a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.
b. The test must use the single-breath technique.
(i) The VI during the DLCO maneuver must be at least 85 percent of your current FVC, and your time of inhalation must be less than 4 seconds. (See 3.00E for our rules for programmatically acceptable spirometry.) If you do not have an FVC measurement on the same day as the DLCO test, we may use your FVC from programmatically acceptable spirometry administered within 90 days of the DLCO test.
(ii) Your breath-hold time must be between 8 and 12 seconds.
(iii) Your total exhalation time must be less than or equal to 4 seconds, with a sample collection time of less than 3 seconds. If your FVC is at least 2.0 L, the washout volume must be between 0.75 L and 1.0 L. If your FVC is less than 2.0 L, the washout volume must be at least 0.5 L.
3. The DLCO test report must include the following information:
a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.
b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).
c. Legible tracings of your VI, breath-hold maneuver, and volume of exhaled gas showing your name and the date of the test for each DLCO maneuver.
d. At least two acceptable (see 3.00F2) DLCO measurements within 3 mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg of each other
4. We may need to purchase a DLCO test to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C1 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. Since the DLCO calculation requires a current FVC measurement, we may also purchase spirometry at the same time as the DLCO test, even if we already have programmatically acceptable spirometry.
5. Before we purchase a DLCO test, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.
G.
1.
2.
a. We have the following requirements for resting ABG tests under these listings:
(i) You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.
(ii) The test must be administered while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.
b. The resting ABG test report must include the following information:
(i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site.
(ii) The P
c. We may need to purchase a resting ABG test to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C2 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis.
d. Before we purchase a resting ABG test, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.
3.
a. We will
b. We have the following requirements for exercise ABG tests under these listings:
(i) You must have done the exercise under steady state conditions while breathing room air. If you were tested on a treadmill, you generally must have exercised for at least 4 minutes at a grade and speed providing oxygen (O
(ii) We may use a test in which you have not exercised for at least 4 minutes. If you were unable to complete at least 4 minutes of steady state exercise, we need a statement by the person administering the test about whether the results are a valid indication of your respiratory status. For example, this statement may include information about your cooperation or effort in doing the test and whether you were limited in completing the test because of your respiratory disorder or another impairment.
c. The exercise ABG test report must include the following information:
(i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and state of the test site.
(ii) The P
H.
1. Pulse oximetry measures S
2. We have the following requirements for pulse oximetry under 3.02C3:
a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.
b. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be recorded while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.
c. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be stable. By “stable,” we mean that the range of S
d. If you have had more than one measurement (for example, at rest and after a 6MWT), we will use the measurement with the lowest S
e. The pulse oximetry report must include the following information:
(i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site.
(ii) A graphical printout showing your S
f. We may need to purchase pulse oximetry at rest to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C3 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. We may purchase pulse oximetry during and after a 6MWT if your S
g. Before we purchase pulse oximetry, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.
3. We have the following requirements for pulse oximetry under 3.04F:
a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.
b. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be recorded while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.
c. If you have had more than one measurement (for example, at rest and after a 6MWT), we will use the measurement with the lowest S
d. The pulse oximetry report must include your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site. If you have CF, we do not require a graphical printout showing your S
I.
1.
2. For the purposes of 3.03:
a. We need evidence showing that you have listing-level (see Table VI in 3.03A) airflow obstruction at baseline while you are medically stable.
b. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year” in 3.03B does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your asthma continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling.
c. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case, but it will be no later than the admission date of your first of three hospitalizations that satisfy the criteria of 3.03B.
J.
1.
2.
a. One of the following:
(i) A positive newborn screen for CF; or
(ii) A history of CF in a sibling; or
(iii) Documentation of at least one specific CF phenotype or clinical criterion (for example, chronic sino-pulmonary disease with persistent colonization or infections with typical CF pathogens, pancreatic insufficiency, or salt-loss syndromes);
b. One of the following definitive laboratory tests:
(i) An elevated sweat chloride concentration equal to or greater than 60 millimoles per L; or
(ii) The identification of two CF gene mutations affecting the CFTR; or
(iii) Characteristic abnormalities in ion transport across the nasal epithelium.
c. When we have the report showing a and b, but it is not signed by a physician, we also need a report from a physician stating that you have CF.
d. When we do not have the report showing a and b, we need a report from a physician that is persuasive that a positive diagnosis of CF was confirmed by an appropriate definitive laboratory test. To be persuasive, this report must include a statement by the physician that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test for diagnosing CF. The report must provide the test results or explain how your diagnosis was established that is consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.
3.
4. For 3.04G, we require any two exacerbations or complications from the list in 3.04G1 through 3.04G4 within a 12-month period. You may have two of the same exacerbation or complication or two different ones.
a. If you have two of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 3.04G1 and 3.04G2, there must be at least 30 days between the two.
b. If you have one of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 3.04G1 and 3.04G2 and one of the chronic complications we describe in 3.04G3 and 3.04G4, the two can occur during the same time. For example, your CF meets 3.04G if you have the pulmonary hemorrhage we describe in 3.04G2 and the weight loss we describe in 3.04G3 even if the pulmonary hemorrhage occurs during the 90-day period in 3.04G3.
c. Your CF also meets 3.04G if you have both of the chronic complications in 3.04G3 and 3.04G4.
5. CF may also affect other body systems such as digestive or endocrine. If your CF, including pulmonary exacerbations and nonpulmonary complications, does not meet or medically equal a respiratory disorders listing, we may evaluate your CF-related impairments under the listings in the affected body system.
K.
L.
1. Chronic pulmonary hypertension is an increase in the blood pressure of the blood vessels of the lungs. If pulmonary hypertension is not adequately treated, it can eventually result in right heart failure. We evaluate chronic pulmonary hypertension due to any cause under 3.09.
2. Chronic pulmonary hypertension is usually diagnosed by catheterization of the
M.
N.
O.
P.
1.
2. We evaluate the complications of sleep-related breathing disorders under the listings in the affected body system(s). For example, we evaluate chronic pulmonary hypertension due to any cause under 3.09; chronic heart failure under 4.02; and disturbances in mood, cognition, and behavior under 12.02 or another appropriate mental disorders listing. We will not purchase polysomnography (sleep study).
Q.
R.
1. These listings are only examples of common respiratory disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent you from doing any gainful activity. If your impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also consider whether you have an impairment(s) that meets the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, if your CF has resulted in chronic pancreatic or hepatobiliary disease, we evaluate your impairment under the listings in 5.00.
2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See §§ 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter. Respiratory disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, you may or may not have the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity. We proceed to the fourth step and, if necessary, the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process in §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 of this chapter. We use the rules in §§ 404.1594 and 416.994 of this chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
3.02
A. FEV
OR
B. FVC (see 3.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table II–A or II–B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 3.00E3a).
OR
C. Chronic impairment of gas exchange demonstrated by 1, 2, or 3:
1. Average of two unadjusted, single-breath DLCO measurements (see 3.00F) less than or equal to the value in Table III for your gender and height without shoes (see 3.00F3a); or
2. Arterial P
3. S
OR
D. Exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization.
3.03
A. FEV
AND
B. Exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. Consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization; after that, evaluate the residual impairment(s) under 3.03 or another appropriate listing.
3.04
A. FEV
OR
B. Exacerbations or complications (see 3.00J3) requiring three hospitalizations of any length within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).
OR
C. Spontaneous pneumothorax, secondary to CF, requiring chest tube placement.
OR
D. Respiratory failure (see 3.00N) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively.
OR
E. Pulmonary hemorrhage requiring vascular embolization to control bleeding.
OR
F. S
OR
G. Two of the following exacerbations or complications (either two of the same or two different, see 3.00J3 and 3.00J4) within a 12-month period (the 12-month period must
1. Pulmonary exacerbation requiring 10 consecutive days of intravenous antibiotic treatment.
2. Pulmonary hemorrhage (hemoptysis with more than blood-streaked sputum but not requiring vascular embolization) requiring hospitalization of any length.
3. Weight loss requiring daily supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy for at least 90 consecutive days
4. CFRD requiring daily insulin therapy for at least 90 consecutive days.
3.05 [Reserved]
3.06 [Reserved]
3.07
3.08 [Reserved]
3.09
3.10 [Reserved]
3.11
3.12 [Reserved]
3.13 [Reserved]
3.14
103.00 Respiratory Disorders.
A.
1. We evaluate respiratory disorders that result in obstruction (difficulty moving air out of the lungs) or restriction (difficulty moving air into the lungs), or that interfere with diffusion (gas exchange) across cell membranes in the lungs. Examples of such disorders and the listings we use to evaluate them include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (103.02), chronic lung disease of infancy (also known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 103.02C or 103.02E), pulmonary fibrosis (103.02), asthma (103.02 or 103.03), and cystic fibrosis (103.04). We also use listings in this body system to evaluate respiratory failure resulting from an underlying chronic respiratory disorder (103.04E or 103.14) and lung transplantation (103.11).
2. We evaluate cancers affecting the respiratory system under the listings in 113.00. We evaluate the pulmonary effects of neuromuscular and autoimmune disorders under these listings or under the listings in 111.00 or 114.00, respectively.
B.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
D.
1. We need
2. If you use
3.
E.
1. Spirometry, which measures how well you move air into and out of your lungs, involves at least three forced expiratory maneuvers during the same test session. A forced expiratory maneuver is a maximum inhalation followed by a forced maximum exhalation, and measures exhaled volumes of air over time. The volume of air you exhale in the first second of the forced expiratory maneuver is the FEV
2. We have the following requirements for spirometry under these listings:
a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. Examples of when we would not consider you to be medically stable include when you are:
(i) Within 2 weeks of a change in your prescribed respiratory medication.
(ii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, a lower respiratory tract infection.
(iii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, an acute exacerbation (temporary worsening) of a chronic respiratory disorder. Wheezing by itself does not indicate that you are not medically stable.
b. During testing, if your FEV
c. Your forced expiratory maneuvers must be satisfactory. We consider a forced expiratory maneuver to be satisfactory when you exhale with maximum effort following a full inspiration, and when the test tracing has a sharp takeoff and rapid rise to peak flow, has a smooth contour, and either lasts for at least 6 seconds (for children age 10 and older) or for at least 3 seconds (for children who have not attained age 10), or maintains a plateau for at least 1 second.
3. The spirometry report must include the following information:
a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.
b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).
c. Legible tracings of your forced expiratory maneuvers in a volume-time format showing your name and the date of the test for each maneuver.
4. If you have attained age 6, we may need to purchase spirometry to determine whether your disorder meets a listing, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis.
5. Before we purchase spirometry for a child age 6 or older, a medical consultant (see § 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of children with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. If we purchase spirometry, the medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.
F.
1.
2. If you have CLD, are not yet 6 months old, and need 24-hour-per-day oxygen supplementation, we will not evaluate your CLD under 103.02C until you are 6 months old. Depending on the evidence in your case record, we may make a fully favorable determination or decision under other rules before you are 6 months old.
3. We evaluate your CLD under 103.02C if you are at least 6 months old and you need 24-hour-per-day oxygen supplementation. (If you were born prematurely, we use your corrected chronological age. See § 416.924b(b) of this chapter.) We also evaluate your CLD under 103.02C if you were weaned off oxygen supplementation but needed it again by the time you were 6 months old or older.
4. We evaluate your CLD under 103.02E if you are any age from birth to the attainment of age 2 and have CLD exacerbations or complications (for example, wheezing, lower respiratory tract infections, or acute respiratory distress) that require hospitalization. For the purpose of 103.02E, we count your initial birth hospitalization as one hospitalization. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization
G.
1.
2. For the purposes of 103.03:
a. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year” explains how long your asthma can meet the requirements of the listing. It does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your asthma continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling.
b. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case, but it will be no later than the admission date of your first of three hospitalizations that satisfy the criteria of 103.03.
H.
1.
2.
a. One of the following:
(i) A positive newborn screen for CF; or
(ii) A history of CF in a sibling; or
(iii) Documentation of at least one specific CF phenotype or clinical criterion (for example, chronic sino-pulmonary disease with persistent colonization or infections with typical CF pathogens, pancreatic insufficiency, or salt-loss syndromes);
b. One of the following definitive laboratory tests:
(i) An elevated sweat chloride concentration equal to or greater than 60 millimoles per L; or
(ii) The identification of two CF gene mutations affecting the CFTR; or
(iii) Characteristic abnormalities in ion transport across the nasal epithelium.
c. When we have the report showing a and b, but it is not signed by a physician, we also need a report from a physician stating that you have CF.
d. When we do not have the report showing a and b, we need a report from a physician that is persuasive that a positive diagnosis of CF was confirmed by an appropriate definitive laboratory test. To be persuasive, this report must include a statement by the physician that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test for diagnosing CF. The report must provide the test results or explain how your diagnosis was established that is consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.
3.
4. For 103.04G, we require any two exacerbations or complications from the list in 103.04G1 through 103.04G4 within a 12-month period. You may have two of the same exacerbation or complication or two different ones.
a. If you have two of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 103.04G1 and 103.04G2, there must be at least 30 days between the two.
b. If you have one of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 103.04G1 and 103.04G2 and one of the chronic complications we describe in 103.04G3 and 103.04G4, the two can occur during the same time. For example, your CF meets 103.04G if you have the pulmonary hemorrhage we describe in 103.04G2 and the weight loss we describe in 103.04G3 even if the pulmonary hemorrhage occurs during the 90-day period in 103.04G3.
c. Your CF also meets 103.04G if you have both of the chronic complications in 103.04G3 and 103.04G4.
5. CF may also affect other body systems such as digestive or endocrine. If your CF, including pulmonary exacerbations and nonpulmonary complications, does not meet or medically equal a respiratory disorders listing, we may evaluate your CF-related impairments under the listings in the affected body system.
I.
J.
K.
1. To evaluate growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder, we require documentation of the oxygen supplementation described in 103.06A and the growth measurements in 103.06B within
2. Under 103.06B, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.
a. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).
b. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).
c. BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.
L.
1. These listings are only examples of common respiratory disorders that we consider severe enough to result in marked and severe functional limitations. If your impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also consider whether you have an impairment(s) that meets the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, if your CF has resulted in chronic pancreatic or hepatobiliary disease, we evaluate your impairment under the listings in 105.00.
2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See § 416.926 of this chapter. Respiratory disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, we will also consider whether it functionally equals the listings. See § 416.926a of this chapter. We use the rules in § 416.994a of this chapter when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
103.02
A. FEV
OR
B. FVC (see 103.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table II–A or II–B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 103.00E3a).
OR
C. Hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 L per minute of continuous (24 hours per day) oxygen supplementation for at least 90 consecutive days.
OR
D. The presence of a tracheostomy.
1. Consider under a disability until the attainment of age 3; or
2. Upon the attainment of age 3, documented need for mechanical ventilation via a tracheostomy for at least 4 hours per day and for at least 90 consecutive days.
OR
E. For children who have not attained age 2, CLD (see 103.00F) with exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).
103.03
103.04
A. FEV
OR
B. For children who have not attained age 6, findings on imaging (see 103.00D3) of thickening of the proximal bronchial airways, nodular-cystic lesions, segmental or lobular atelectasis, or consolidation,
1. Shortness of breath with activity; or
2. Accumulation of secretions as manifested by repetitive coughing; or
3. Bilateral rales or rhonchi, or reduction of breath sounds.
OR
C. Exacerbations or complications (see 103.00H3) requiring three hospitalizations of any length within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).
OR
D. Spontaneous pneumothorax, secondary to CF, requiring chest tube placement.
OR
E. Respiratory failure (see 103.00J) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively.
OR
F. Pulmonary hemorrhage requiring vascular embolization to control bleeding.
OR
G. Two of the following exacerbations or complications (either two of the same or two different, see 103.00H3 and 103.00H4) within a 12-month period (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review):
1. Pulmonary exacerbation requiring 10 consecutive days of intravenous antibiotic treatment.
2. Pulmonary hemorrhage (hemoptysis with more than blood-streaked sputum but not requiring vascular embolization) requiring hospitalization of any length.
3. Weight loss requiring daily supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy for at least 90 consecutive days
4. CFRD requiring daily insulin therapy for at least 90 consecutive days.
103.05 [Reserved]
103.06
A. Hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 L per min of oxygen supplementation for at least 4 hours per day and for at least 90 consecutive days.
AND
B. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:
1.
a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and
b. At least 60 days apart; and
c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or
2.
a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and
b. At least 60 days apart; and
c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.
103.07 [Reserved]
103.08 [Reserved]
103.09 [Reserved]
103.10 [Reserved]
103.11
103.12 [Reserved]
103.13 [Reserved]
103.14
Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the termination of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee. This document removes the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee from the Agency's list of standing advisory committees.
This rule is effective June 9, 2016.
Bryan Emery, Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–8054, FAX: 301–595–1307, or
The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established on June 9, 1995 (60 FR 31311, June 14, 1995; 21 CFR 14.100 erroneously lists the date of establishment as June 21, 1995). The Committee reviews and evaluates available scientific data concerning the safety of products that may be a risk for transmission of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health as determined by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Commissioner regarding the regulation of such products. In recent years, the number of issues requiring Committee advice has declined, and the Committee has met very infrequently. Therefore, the effort and expense of maintaining this advisory committee is no longer justified. Any relevant Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy issues in the future could be addressed by the Agency's other advisory committees, such as the Agency's Blood Products Advisory Committee, with additional augmentation of expertise by appropriate subject matter experts serving as temporary members on the committee.
The Committee is no longer needed and will be terminated on June 9, 2016.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40 (d) and (e), the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment procedures and to proceed to an immediate effective date on this rule. Notice and public comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary and are not in the public interest as this final rule merely removes the name of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee from the list of standing advisory committees in 21 CFR 14.100.
Therefore, the Agency is amending 21 CFR 14.100(b) as set forth in the regulatory text of this document.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451–1461, 21 U.S.C. 41–50, 141–149, 321–394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107–109; Pub. L. 108–155.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Interim final rule.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) publishes this interim final rule to adjust the amount of our civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for inflation with an initial “catch-up” adjustment under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.
This rule is effective July 11, 2016. Comments will be accepted until August 8, 2016.
You may submit comments to ONRR by one of the following three methods. (Please reference the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1012–AA17 in your comments.). See also Public Availability of Comments under Procedural Requirements.
1. Electronically, go to
2. Mail comments to Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, ONRR, P.O. Box 25165, MS 64400B, Denver, Colorado 80225.
3. Hand-carry comments, or use an overnight courier service to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Building 53, Entrance E–20, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225.
For comments or questions on procedural issues, contact Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, by telephone at (303) 231–3418 or email to
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114–74) (the Act). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust each CMP amount with an initial catch-up adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments. The new CMP amounts must be published by July 1, 2016, and take effect no later than August 1, 2016. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law.
The Act provides that any increase in a CMP due to the calculated inflation adjustments shall apply only to a violation that occurs after the date when the increase takes effect and states that the initial inflation adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the amount of the CMP on November 2, 2015.
OMB issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustments.
Under the Act, the inflation adjustment for each applicable CMP is determined by increasing the maximum CMP amount per violation by the cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment is defined as the percent by which the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U) for the month of October of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds the CPI–U for the month of October of the year in which the amount of such CMP was last set or adjusted pursuant to law.
The maximum CMP amounts for ONRR penalties under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)–(d) were established in 1983 in the Federal Oil and Gas Management Act (FOGRMA). Since we have not updated the maximum CMP amounts for inflation since their establishment, we must calculate a new maximum CMP with an initial catch-up adjustment. The inflation adjustment amount for each maximum CMP amount is calculated by multiplying the 1983 maximum CMP amount by the 2016 CMP catch-up adjustment multiplier for 1983, which is 2.35483. In accordance with the Act, the new maximum CMP amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. For example:
The maximum CMP amount under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a) established in 1983 is $500.
The 2016 CMP catch-up adjustment multiplier for 1983 is 2.35483.
Therefore, $500 × 2.35483 = $1,177.415, which rounds to $1,177.
The new maximum CMP amount is $1,177.
Pursuant to the Act, in the event that a violation took place prior to the effective date of the new penalty amount—and we assess a penalty after the effective date—the new penalty amount is assessed in a manner consistent with the new maximum CMP calculation. As the Act applies to penalties assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, the Act adjusts penalties prospectively. The Act does not retrospectively change previously assessed or enforced penalties that we are actively collecting or have collected. The Act does not alter our statutory authority to assess penalties below the maximum amount.
This final rule adjusts the maximum CMP amount within each of the four established civil penalty tiers specified in 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)–(d). The following list summarizes the existing ONRR regulations containing CMPs, as well as the penalties before and after adjustment. The increases in maximum CMP amounts contained in this final rule may not necessarily affect the amount of any CMP that we may seek for a particular violation; we will calculate each CMP on a case-by-case basis.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public, where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States–based enterprises to compete with foreign–based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, we are not required to provide a statement containing the information that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in section 2 of E.O. 12630, this rule does not have any significant takings implications. This rule will not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property. Therefore, this rule does not require a takings implication assessment.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, this rule does not require a Federalism summary impact statement.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires that we review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write them to minimize litigation.
b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires that we write all regulations in clear language using clear legal standards.
The Department strives to strengthen its government–to–government relationship with the Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Under the Department's consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated this rule and determined that it will have no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and does not require consultation.
This rule:
(a) Does not contain any new information collection requirements.
(b) Does not require a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under NEPA because this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i) in that this rule is “. . .
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211 and, therefore, does not require a Statement of Energy Effects.
We are required by E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), 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 common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon.
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences.
(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 the
ONRR will post all comments, including the name and address of a respondent, at
In accordance with § 553(b), ONRR generally publishes a rule in a proposed form and solicits public comment on it before issuing the final rule. However, § 553(b)(3)(B) provides an exception to the public comment requirement if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. Good cause is shown when public comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
ONRR finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. We are promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish an interim final rule and to update the CMP amounts by applying a specified formula. ONRR has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule. Also, it would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Thus, pre-promulgation notice and public comment is unnecessary and impracticable. These technical changes,
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil penalties, Coal, Geothermal, Inflation, Mineral resources, Natural gas, Notices of non-compliance, oil.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ONRR amends 30 CFR part 1241 as set forth below:
25 U.S.C. 396
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for a marine event taking place in the Tred Avon River, between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD on June 12, 2016. The date of this enforcement action has changed because the event was postponed by the sponsor due to inclement weather. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this marine event. During the enforcement period, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated Marine Event Patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501, listed as event (b)14 in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on June 12, 2016.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM); telephone 410–576–26742, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulated area in 33 CFR 100.501 from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on June 12, 2016, for the Oxford-Bellevue Sharkfest Swim. The date of this enforcement action has changed because the event was postponed by the sponsor due to inclement weather. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for this event that includes all waters of the Tred Avon River from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N., longitude 076°10′45″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N., longitude 076°10′26″ W., and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N., longitude 076°11′04″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′49″ W., thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′30″ W., located at Oxford, MD. Only designated marine event participants and their vessels and official patrol vessels are authorized to enter the regulated area. As specified in § 100.501(c), during the enforcement period, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated Marine Event Patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed; (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol; (iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.501(f), Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North “SAGA” Bridge across the Saugatuck River, mile 1.1, at Saugatuck,
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 18, 2016 to 8 a.m. on August 29, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0402] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514–4330, email
The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform timber ties and headblocks replacement at the bridge.
The Metro-North Saga Bridge, mile 1.1, across the Saugatuck River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13 feet at mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water.
The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.221(b).
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels.
Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North Saga Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:
a. From 8 a.m. on July 18, 2016 through 4 a.m. on July 22, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
b. From 4 a.m. on July 22, 2016 through 8 a.m. on July 25, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
c. From 8 a.m. on July 25, 2016 through 4 a.m. on July 29, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
d. From 4 a.m. on July 29, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 1, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
e. From 8 a.m. on August 1, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 5, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
f. From 4 a.m. on August 5, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 8, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
g. From 8 a.m. on August 8, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 12, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
h. From 4 a.m. on August 12, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 15, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
i. From 8 a.m. on August 15, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 19, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
j. From 4 a.m. on August 19, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 22, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
k. From 8 a.m. on August 22, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 26, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
l. From 4 a.m. on August 26, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 29, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. 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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel, at Nassau, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to facility public safety during a public event, the Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.
This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on June 25, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. on June 26, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0404] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514–4330, email
Town of Hempstead Department of Public Safety requested and the bridge owner, Nassau County Department of Public Works, concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.
The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).
Reynolds Channel is transited by commercial and recreational traffic.
Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridges may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2016 (rain date: June 26, 2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.).
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, at Suffolk County, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to facility public safety during a public event, the annual 5K Run for Literacy.
This deviation is effective on September 10, 2016 between 9:00 a.m. and 10 a.m.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0427] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514–4330, email
Community Family Literacy Project, Inc. requested and Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the bridge owner concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the annual 5K Run for Literacy.
The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
Narrow Bay is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.
Under this temporary deviation, the Smith Point Bridges may remain in the closed position on Saturday September 10, 2016 between 9:00 a.m. and 10 a.m.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending the Columbus Day Weekend regulated navigation area on Biscayne Bay in Miami, Florida. The proposed amended regulation extends the Biscayne Bay regulated navigation enforcement period to New Year's Eve and Fourth of July events. It also expands the boundaries of the regulated navigation area south to Turkey Point, east to Elliott Key, west to the shoreline, and north to the Julia Tuttle Causeway. These regulations are necessary to protect the public during these events, which are periods that have historically had a significant concentration of persons and vessels on the waters of Biscayne Bay. To ensure the public's safety, all vessels within the regulated navigation area are: Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; subject to control by the Coast Guard; and required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area.
This rule is effective July 11, 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 Petty Officer Benjamin Colbert, Sector Miami Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305–535–4317, email
Recreational boating traffic on the waters of Biscayne Bay increases significantly during New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend events. In recent years, recreational vessel speed, especially in crossing navigational channels, contributed to incidents that resulted in severe injury and death. This regulation seeks to increase public safety on the waters of Biscayne Bay during New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend, holidays known for increased vessel traffic, by requiring vessels to travel at a maximum speed of 15 knots. It also subjects recreational vessels to the control by Coast Guard and local law enforcement authorities. On November 20, 2015 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Regulated Navigation Area; Columbus Day Weekend, New Year's Eve Events, and Fourth of July Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL (80 FR 72663). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended December 21, 2015, we received no comments.
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The District Seven Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend events pose a safety concern for anyone on the waters of Biscayne Bay. The
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published November 20, 2015. There are no significant changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule establishes a regulated navigation area Columbus Day weekend, starting at noon on the Saturday before Columbus Day through 2 a.m. on Monday (the Columbus Day holiday); from 9 p.m. December 31st until 2 a.m. January 1st; and from 7 p.m. until 2 a.m. on the night Fourth of July fireworks are scheduled in Downtown Miami and Key Biscayne.
This regulated navigation area will encompass waters of Biscayne Bay between Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge and Turkey Point in Homestead, Florida. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend Holidays.
All vessels within the proposed regulated navigation area are: (1) Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; (2) subject to control by the Coast Guard; and (3) required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area.
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, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although the regulated navigation area covers most of Biscayne Bay, it is only enforced for a maximum of 38 hours during three holiday weekends. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 to provide notice of the zone and the regulations that allow vessels to enter the regulated navigation area.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 regulated navigation area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.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 relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this 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 is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the
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)
(b)
(2) The term “Columbus Day” means the federally recognized holiday occurring annually on the second Monday in October.
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision to the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP), submittals from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated April 27, and September 10, 2015. The submittal concerns the state's Stage II vapor recovery (Stage II) program for the Indiana portion of the Chicago (Lake and Porter counties) and the Louisville, Kentucky (Clark and Floyd counties) ozone nonattainment areas. The submittal removes Stage II requirements from both nonattainment areas, as a component of the Indiana ozone SIP. The submittal also includes a demonstration under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that addresses emission impacts associated with the removal of the Stage II program. EPA proposed to approve the state's submittal on February 25, 2016, and received no comments.
This final rule is effective on July 11, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0315. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On February 25, 2016, at 81 FR 9391, EPA proposed to approve amendments to 326 IAC 8–4–6 and 326 IAC 8–4–1 of the Indiana Administrative Code, removing Stage II requirements from the Indiana's Federally-approved ozone SIP. The revision included copies of 326 IAC 8–4–1 and 326 IAC 8–4–6, as published in the Indiana Register on March 4, 2015 (Document ID Number: 20150304–IR–326120636FRA); a summary of state-specific calculations based on EPA guidance used to calculate program benefits and demonstrate widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) in Indiana; and a section 110(l) demonstration that includes offset emission documentation that addresses the 2013–2015 period, when Stage II requirements were waived in Indiana but widespread use of ORVR had not yet occurred.
EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the proposed action. The comment period closed on March 28, 2016. EPA received no comments.
EPA is approving revisions to the Indiana ozone SIP submitted dated
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 Indiana Regulations described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 August 8, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule is effective on August 8, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by July 11, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0136 at
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)886–6031,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
In the SIP, the ELT River Road Industrial Center is subject to specific restrictions as part of Minnesota's SIP for SO
Currently, four fossil fuel-fired boilers (#1, #2, #3, and #4) and four emergency generators (#5, #6, #7, and #8) are the primary emission units at the facility. Boilers #1, #2, and #3 use natural gas as their primary fuel with distillate oil as a backup fuel. Boiler #4 uses natural gas for fuel. All the emergency generators use low sulfur diesel fuel. In addition, the facility is subject to fuel usage limitations to restrict the total facility SO
On February 24, 2016, the MPCA submitted a revision to Minnesota's SO
In 2015, as part of a purchase agreement, corporate ownership transferred from ELT to the Gramercy Property Trust Fridley Owner LLC (GPT Fridley). GPT Fridley changed the name of the facility from River Road Industrial Center to BAE.
Under new ownership, BAE will be used for office and warehouse space. The emergency generators are used for stand-by power, for both life-safety, and
The revised SIP identifies the boilers and emergency generators as both emission units (EU) and numbered equipment (EQUI). For example, boiler #4 (EU 004) is now identified as boiler #4 (EU 004/EQUI 1).
Because part of the BAE facility had been demolished, boilers #1, #2, and #3, and emergency generators #7 and #8 were decommissioned and removed from the facility. Boiler #4, and emergency generators #5 and #6 were relocated within the facility.
As part of the recent changes to the facility, boiler #4, which burns natural gas, has been modified to burn fuel oil as a backup fuel. Boiler #4 has a design capacity rated at 10.46 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). BAE has imposed limits on boiler #4 to restrict its fuels to natural gas and distillate fuel oil, with a sulfur content limit on the fuel oil of less than or equal to 0.05 percent by weight.
Boilers #1, #2, and #3, which had design capacities rated at 69.8, 69.8, and 35.1 MMBtu/hr, respectively, have been replaced with a newer, more efficient boiler. The new boiler #5 has a design capacity rated at 19.674 MMBtu/hr. Boiler #5 is restricted to combusting natural gas and distillate fuel oil with a sulfur content limit on the fuel oil of less than or equal to 0.05 percent by weight as a backup fuel.
The SO
Boiler #4's potential SO
Overall, the emissions change from replacing the three older boilers (#1, #2, and #3) with a new, more efficient boiler #5, coupled with modifications to boiler #4 to burn fuel oil as a backup fuel, result in a significant decrease in SO
SO
The revised SO
EPA is approving the request by Minnesota to revise the SO
This revision will result in an overall reduction of SO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
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 Minnesota regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for snowy grouper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) by June 14, 2016. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 14, 2016, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2017. This closure is necessary to protect the snowy grouper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes snowy grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic is 125,760 lb (57,044 kg), gutted weight, 148,397 lb (67,312 kg), round weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2016, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1)(ii).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having snowy grouper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016. During the commercial closure, harvest and possession of snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits, as specified in § 622.187(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(1). Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for snowy grouper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of snowy grouper and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect snowy grouper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–7 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland, has issued AD HB–2016–001, dated May 17, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–7 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:
This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to a report of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) on the Main Frame on Frame (FR) 11 left fitting Part Number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490.
Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could lead to potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer.
In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one-time check to identify the material specification and inspect the affected areas of the airframe that are made of aluminum alloy AA2024–T351. Any structural parts of the aircraft structure found to be cracked must be reported to Pilatus prior to further flight
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. has issued PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–013; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–014, both dated February 25, 2016. PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–013, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspection of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings for stress corrosion cracking; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–014, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for replacement of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings when necessary. 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The service bulletin requires repetitive inspections by reference in a note, which the FAA cannot mandate, so the intent of the note has been incorporated into a required action for this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 19 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to check the material specification of the fittings and 11 work-hours per product to inspect the 2014–T351 fittings as required in order 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $17,765, or $935 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000 for a cost of $1,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 25, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC–7 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 101 through 618, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings, which can cause potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking on the frame 11 left and right fittings and replace if necessary.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 120 days after the effective date of this AD, check the material specification of the Frame (FR) 11 left fitting part number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490 following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.B. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–013, dated February 25, 2016.
(2) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2124–T851 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 30 days after the inspection or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the inspection results following the reporting requirements in paragraph 3.D. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–013, dated February 25, 2016.
(3) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2024–T351 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect FR 11 left fitting, P/N 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting, P/N 112.35.07.490, for cracks following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.C. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–013, dated February 25, 2016.
(4) If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fittings following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3 of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC–7 Service Bulletin No: 53–014, dated February 25, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB–2016–001, dated May 17, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is considering establishing new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. We are considering this action after receiving requests suggesting that anchorage grounds may improve navigation safety along an extended portion of the Hudson River, which currently has no anchorage grounds, allowing for a safer and more efficient flow of vessel traffic. The Coast Guard is seeking comments and information about the operational need for new anchorage grounds and what form possible regulations should take.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 7, 2016.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 30, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2016–0132 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this document, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management Branch at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617–223–8351, email
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comments can help shape the outcome of this possible rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this ANPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Under title 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 109.05, U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders are delegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard establishes Anchorage Grounds under the authority in Section 7 of the act of March 4, 1915, as amended (38 Stat. 1053; 33 U.S.C. 471), and places these regulations in title 33 CFR part 110, subpart B. Hudson River Anchorage Ground regulations were last amended by rules published on March 31, 2016, January 15, 2015, and on July 20, 1999; these are 81 FR 18494, 80 FR 2011, and 64 FR 38828, respectively. The Coast Guard is now considering a proposed rulemaking to establish new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River.
The legal basis and authorities for this ANPRM are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071, as well as 33 CFR 1.05–1 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages. The Coast Guard is considering establishing new anchorage grounds.
The Coast Guard received requests from the Maritime Association of the Port of NY/NJ Tug and Barge Committee, the Hudson River Port Pilot's Association, and the American Waterways Operators to consider establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on potential proposed rulemakings to increase the available anchorage grounds on the Hudson River in areas which currently have no anchorages.
The Coast Guard is considering proposing to establish new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The anticipated users of the proposed anchorage grounds are commercial vessels and their attending tug, tow, or pushboats.
The approximate depths of the proposed anchorage grounds range from 21 feet to 65 feet, which would accommodate a variety of vessel types and configurations, and would not interfere with the areas where vessels have historically transited the Hudson River. Preliminary details describing these contemplated anchorage grounds are provided below using coordinates based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Illustrations showing the locations of these anchorage grounds are available in the docket.
We are considering proposing that a Kingston Flats South Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 279 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 22 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,300 feet for one vessel and of approximately 1,800 feet for two vessels. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–56.79′ N., 073–57.24′ W.; thence to 41–56.78′ N., 073–56.85′ W.; thence to 41–55.81′ N., 073–56.95′ W.; thence to 41–55.81′ N., 073–57.42′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Port Ewen Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 47 acres for one vessel with a draft of less than 30 feet for short term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–54.85′ N., 073–57.85′ W.; thence to 41–54.79′ N., 073–57.59′ W.; thence to 41–54.58′ N., 073–57.64′ W.; thence to 41–54.57′ N., 073–57.95′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Big Rock Point Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 208 acres for up to four vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–54.25′ N., 073–58.04′ W.; thence to 41–54.31′ N., 073–57.76′ W.; thence to 41–53.79′ N., 073–57.55′ W.; thence to 41–53.40′ N., 073–57.25′ W.; thence to 41–53.21′ N., 073–57.45′ W.; thence to 41–53.68′ N., 073–57.80′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Roseton Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 305 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,700 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–33.46′ N., 073–58.71′ W.; thence to 41–33.41′ N., 073–58.27′ W.; thence to 41–32.92′ N., 073–58.77′ W.; thence to 41–32.41′ N., 073–59.21′ W.; thence to 41–32.65′ N., 073–59.47′ W.; thence to 41–33.12′ N., 073–59.11′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Milton Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 74 acres for up to two vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–38.56′ N., 073–57.02′ W.; thence to 41–38.64′ N., 073–56.72′ W.; thence to 41–38.12′ N., 073–56.79′ W.; thence to 41–37.93′ N., 073–56.88′ W.; thence to 41–38.19′ N., 073–57.05′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Marlboro Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 154 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,800 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–36.68′ N., 073–57.12′ W.; thence to 41–38.82′ N., 073–57.76′ W.; thence to 41–35.88′ N., 073–57.21′ W.; thence to 41–35.87′ N., 073–56.92′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Newburgh Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 445 acres for up to five vessels with a draft of less than 32 feet toward the northern end and less than 22 feet toward the southern end for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,800 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–29.75′ N., 073–59.98′ W.; thence to 41–29.96′ N., 073–59.48′ W.; thence to 41–28.38′ N., 073–59.94′ W.; thence to 41–28.29′ N., 074–00.20′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Tomkins Cove Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 98 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–15.91′ N., 073–58.51′ W.; thence to 41–15.91′ N., 073–58.21′ W.; thence to 41–15.27′ N., 073–58.38′ W.; thence to 41–15.28′ N., 073–58.65′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
We are considering proposing that a Montrose Point Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 127 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of
We are considering proposing that a Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 715 acres for up to 16 vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41–00.60′ N., 073–53.61′ W.; thence to 41–00.60′ N., 073–53.31′ W.; thence to 40–58.05′ N., 073–53.96′ W.; thence to 40–56.96′ N., 073–54.39′ W.; thence to 40–57.02′ N., 073–54.71′ W.; thence to 40–58.11′ N., 073–54.25′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).
Public participation is requested to assist in determining the best way forward with respect to establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing a possible proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative, including but not limited to the impacts anchorage grounds may have on navigation safety and current vessel traffic in this area, the proposed number and size of vessels anchoring in each proposed anchorage ground, and the authorized duration for each vessel in each proposed anchorage ground. We are also seeking comments on any additional locations where anchorage grounds may be helpful on the Hudson River or any recommended alterations to the specific locations considered in this notice. Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance with the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan submitted on May 21, 2015. In the submission, Idaho revised stationary source permitting rules, including the addition of facility-wide emission limits and nonmetallic mineral processing plant regulations. Idaho also added an alternative method for stationary sources to comply with sulfur content of fuels limits, and updated provisions to account for changes to federal air quality regulations. The EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions as consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementing regulations.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0397, at
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which a state submits air quality protection requirements to the EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the state's plan to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho regularly updates the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to the NAAQS and to improve implementation, maintenance and enforcement of those standards. We note that Idaho incorporates by reference portions of certain federal regulations directly into the SIP. The state generally submits an annual update to the EPA to keep rules consistent with federal requirements.
On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted revisions to state air quality rules at IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule changes on November 19 and November
In the submission, Idaho revised the rules that permit construction and operation of stationary sources. Idaho's changes give certain minor sources the option to apply for facility-wide emission limitations. These limitations, or caps, when incorporated into a minor source permit to construct or Tier II operating permit, are intended to allow minor sources to operate more flexibly, without having to request permit modifications for certain process changes.
For example, semiconductor manufacturing facilities make many equipment and process changes as they develop new products and technologies. However, many equipment and process changes do not warrant extensive review as a permit modification. The intent of the facility-wide emissions cap is to set a cap on emissions from a facility, while allowing process changes under certain conditions that may increase emissions. As long as facility emissions stay below the cap and the process changes do not trigger new requirements, the source may be permitted to construct and operate.
The new Idaho rules for limiting emissions from minor sources are called the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or “FEC” rules, codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules lay out the requirements a minor source must meet to request a FEC limit, and the method for determining the limit. A FEC limit is expressed as tons per year, on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be applied to any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules do not provide for issuance of a stand-alone permit. Rather, owners or operators of eligible facilities may request a FEC limit be incorporated into a new or existing permit to construct or Tier II operating permit. As stated above, only minor sources are eligible. These include sources that request an emission limit to avoid major source permitting, otherwise known as synthetic minor sources.
In our review, we have evaluated the addition of the FEC option to determine if the revised minor source permit to construct and Tier II operating permit programs continue to comply with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. We propose to find that they do, and that the FEC rules are approvable for the reasons stated below.
First, the FEC rules contain adequate provisions to prevent sources operating under a FEC limit from causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires “. . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source . . . as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.” The EPA's implementing regulations for minor sources, set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, require a state to have procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it will result in a violation of a pollution control strategy, or if it will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.
The FEC rules ensure maintenance of the NAAQS by limiting the option to obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and requiring the applicant to demonstrate that operating under the FEC limit will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA 58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or sources undergoing a major modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit. Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is set below major source thresholds. The FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03 through .04 also require recordkeeping and reporting, including an annual report, demonstrating compliance with the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Second, the addition of the FEC option does not alleviate any of the application requirements for either the minor source permit to construct program or the Tier II operating permit program. The EPA has already approved Idaho's application procedures for both programs. The EPA approved revisions to Idaho's minor source permit to construct application procedures most recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).
In sum, we are proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the rules relate to hazardous air pollutants. Hazardous air pollutants are regulated under CAA section 112, and are not appropriate for approval into the SIP. The SIP includes provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and other specific requirements of CAA section 110. We are also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the revisions to IDAPA 58.01.01.201
In the submission, Idaho made changes to streamline the permit process for rock crushers, asphalt plants, and other portable equipment used to process nonmetallic minerals. Instead of continuing to require that a regulated rock crusher obtain a permit to construct before starting operation, Idaho created a permit by rule that establishes controls and other operating parameters that apply to an eligible source upon registration with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
These requirements are codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799
The requirements for eligible nonmetallic mineral processing plants specify that obtaining a permit by rule does not relieve the owner or operator of an eligible source from the responsibility of complying with other federal, state and local applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. The rules make clear that sources subject to the NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, or the NSPS for
The nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules set out the registration process and operating parameters for rock crushers and other eligible sources, including limits on the hours of operation, fuel consumptions rates, best management practices, and general controls designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. The registration procedures for the permit by rule are contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795 through 799. Owners and operators may choose to operate an eligible plant under the permit by rule by registering the new or modified processing plant fifteen days prior to commencing operation or modification. As part of the registration, the owner or operator must supply information, such as manufacturer, model, and throughput capacity, on the rock crushers, screen decks, and electric generators proposed to be part of the processing plant.
Owners and operators who register their nonmetallic mineral processing plants are deemed to have a permit by rule if they operate the plants in accordance with the applicable substantive requirements. In general, the rules prohibit emissions that would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or that would interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In addition, owners and operators of eligible sources must take all reasonable precautions to prevent the generation of fugitive dust, in addition to meeting specific opacity standards spelled out for categories of activities at areas of operation.
Specific requirements sources must meet include fuel restrictions, limits on operating hours, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for electrical generators at a source. For example, electrical generators must run on American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil and must also meet specific sulfur content in fuel restrictions. Sources also must restrict visible emissions from various activities to 20% opacity or less, aggregating more than three minutes in any sixty minute period. NSPS-regulated processing plants are held to stricter opacity limits.
In addition to meeting opacity limits, sources must use best management practices to limit fugitive dust from the operation, including controls on paved public roads, unpaved haul roads, transfer points, screening operations, stacks and vents, crushers and grinding mills, and stockpiles. These best management practices are triggered during the course of operations, for instance when observed visible emissions from vehicle traffic approaches the opacity limit, or when citizen complaints come in that have merit. Sources must maintain a daily record of observing the operation, including when events trigger required control strategies and the corrective actions taken.
Idaho also amended IDAPA 58.01.01.011 to include new terms supporting the nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules. The new definitions include: “Best Management Practice,” “Control Strategy Trigger,” “Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant,” “NSPS Regulated Facility or Plant,” “Permit by Rule,” “Progressive Control Strategy,” and “Site of Operations.”
The EPA proposes to determine that the permit by rule provisions for rock crushers and other nonmetallic mineral processing plants are consistent with the types of permit terms and conditions that are generally used when issuing source-specific permits to sources in this category, and may in fact be more prescriptive. We also propose to conclude that the addition of the nonmetallic mineral processing rules are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. We are therefore proposing to approve IDAPA 58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 into the Idaho SIP, except IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04 because they are not related to the requirements of CAA section 110 and are inappropriate for SIP approval.
The Idaho sulfur content of fuels provision regulates the sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources by setting limits on the sulfur content of residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and coal that is sold, distributed, used, or made available in Idaho. The provision is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725
If a demonstration meets the rule requirements, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may approve the alternative compliance method into a stationary source permit to construct or operating permit. Any permit issued must contain the appropriate source monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements, for ensuring compliance, in accordance with Idaho's federally-approved permit to construct and operating permit programs.
We note that this rule revision alone does not allow the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to relax any existing permit limits or conditions without also ensuring compliance with existing permit rules. In addition, any modification required for a stationary source to combust higher sulfur fuels, even without increasing allowable emissions, may be subject to preconstruction permitting rules.
Based on the information above, we conclude that the rule change is designed to protect the NAAQS, and we propose to approve and incorporate by reference the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.725
In the submission, Idaho revised IDAPA 58.01.01.006
Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.107
Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same section incorporate the following provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; .d Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and .e Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We propose to find that paragraphs .b, .d, and .e are consistent with CAA requirements. Idaho did not submit paragraphs .f through .n for approval because the provisions are not related to CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP approval.
Paragraph .c incorporates the Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52 subparts A and N, and appendices D and E. This includes the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21, effective July 1, 2014. We propose to find that paragraph .c is consistent with CAA requirements. We note that specific federal PSD permitting rules have been vacated and remanded by the courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded by submitting rule changes to align the Idaho SIP with the court decisions. Please see Section III. F. below.
As discussed above, Idaho incorporates by reference federal PSD permitting requirements. The current Idaho SIP incorporates these rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 2012, except revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC and SIL for PM
On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the portions of the 2010 PSD PM
On December 9, 2013, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM
In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of “subject to regulation” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(
On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in
In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision, pending further judicial action before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply the EPA regulations that would require SIPs to include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
The EPA recently revised federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In addition, we anticipate that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. We do not expect that all states have revised their existing PSD program regulations yet, however, we are evaluating submitted PSD program revision to ensure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs, consistent with the Court's decision.
Idaho's current SIP contains the GHG permitting requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Idaho, previously approved into the SIP, continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limits on GHG emissions, based on the application of BACT, when sources emit or increase GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent).
Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may also currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from approving this SIP submission. Idaho's submission does not add any GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision. While Idaho's submission incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for completeness, the submission reincorporates PSD requirements for GHGs already in the Idaho SIP.
We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Idaho SIP, changes to the following provisions submitted on May 21, 2015:
• IDAPA 58.01.01.006
• IDAPA 58.01.01.011
• IDAPA 58.01.01.107
• IDAPA 58.01.01.157
• IDAPA 58.01.01.175
• IDAPA 58.01.01.176
• IDAPA 58.01.01.177
• IDAPA 58.01.01.178
• IDAPA 58.01.01.179
• IDAPA 58.01.01.180
• IDAPA 58.01.01.181
• IDAPA 58.01.01.201
• IDAPA 58.01.01.202
• IDAPA 58.01.01.401
• IDAPA 58.01.01.579
• IDAPA 58.01.01.725
• IDAPA 58.01.01.790
• IDAPA 58.01.01.791
• IDAPA 58.01.01.793
• IDAPA 58.01.01.794
• IDAPA 58.01.01.795
• IDAPA 58.01.01.796
• IDAPA 58.01.01.797
• IDAPA 58.01.01.798
• IDAPA 58.01.01.799
In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action. The 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 CAA 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 (Public Law 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0136 at
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
In the Final Rules section of this
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the
Charles Padgett, (410) 786–2811.
In FR Doc. 2016–09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.
On pages 24958, 24959, and 25255 we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.
On page 25121, we erroneously referenced the incorrect date for the end of the FY 2019 Hospital-acquired condition (HAC) Reduction Program performance period.
On page 25173, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).
On page 25223, we made an error in specifying the units for the dollar amount in reference to expenditures. We also inadvertently omitted full reference to “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:
On page 25247, we erroneously referenced incorrect year regarding the Spring version of the Clinical Quality Measure (CQM) electronic specifications.
On page 25307, in table titled “Estimated Proportion of Hospitals in the Worst-Performing Quartile (75th Percentile) of the Total HAC Score for the FY 2017 HAC Reduction Program”, we made technical errors in the entries for the “By Teaching Status” hospital characteristic.
On page 25319, we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.
On pages 25322, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).
In FR Doc. 2016–09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), we are making the following corrections:
1. On page 24958, first column, last paragraph, line 11, the phrase “PAC LTCH QRP.” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP.”.
2. On page 24959, third column, last paragraph, line 8, the phrase “Issues-PAC” is corrected to read “Issues-PAC LTCH QRP”.
3. On page 25121, third column, first full paragraph, line 18, the phrase “September 30” is corrected to read “June 30”.
4. On page 25173, third column, fifth bulleted paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “(LTCH QRP) (also referred to as the LTCHQR Program);” is corrected to read as “(LTCH QRP);”.
5. On page 25223:
a. Second column, first full paragraph, line 29, the figure “$4.3B” is corrected as “$4.3 billion”.
b. Third column, third footnote (footnote 232), line 1, the phrase “National Quality Forum:” is corrected to read “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:”.
6. On page 25247, first column, sixth paragraph, line 19, the phrase “Spring 2017” is corrected to read “Spring 2016”.
7. On page 25255, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 7 through 14, the sentence “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measures (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.” is corrected to read “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.”.
1. On page 25307, in the table titled “ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF HOSPITAL IN THE WORST-PERFORMING QUARTILE (75TH PERCENTILE) OF THE TOTAL HAC SCORE FOR THE FY 2017 HAC REDUCTION PROGRAM,” the entries for the hospital characteristic “By Teaching Status” are corrected to read as follows:
2. On page 25319, first column, first partial paragraph, line 13, the phrase “this measures (NQF #0680),” is corrected to read “this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680),”.
3. On 25322, second column, second full paragraph, line 12, the phrase “LTCHQR Program” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP”.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Lincoln National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement to document and disclose projected effects of its management strategy for treating non-native invasive plants (NNIP) across the Forest. This strategy utilizes several management tools, including registered herbicides, biological treatments (biological controls and controlled grazing), and manual and/or mechanical methods. The strategy is adaptive, allowing for the treatment of new NNIP infestations and use of new treatment options, including new herbicides.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 11, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected February 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected August 2017.
Send written comments to the Aurora Roemmich, Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Project, Lincoln National Forest, 3462 La Palomas Road, Alamogordo, NM 88310. Comments may also be sent via email to
Jennie O'Connor Card, Interdisciplinary Team Leader at (406) 522–2537 or by email at
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.
Executive Order 13112, Forest Service Manual 2900, and Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), provide direction related to the management of invasive species. Executive Order 13112 directs Federal agencies to prevent and control invasive species and to minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts. The order provides for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded by non-native invasive species.
A non-native invasive plant species is defined as any terrestrial or aquatic plant species occurring outside its natural range that is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. If a native plant species is deemed a noxious weed by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture or another agency because it is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health, then the species would also be considered for treatment under this analysis and decision.
The overall purpose of this project is to implement a management strategy that uses an integrated selection of techniques designed to prevent the introduction of and control the spread of non-native invasive plants (NNIP). A second purpose is to ensure that the strategy is adaptive, allowing for the treatment of new NNIP infestations and use of new treatment options, including new herbicides, because future NNIP management needs may be different. As such, there are underlying needs to:
1. Utilize the most effective and economical strategies to treat NNIP while protecting valued resources to the greatest practical extent; and,
2. Adapt management techniques to accommodate new NNIP infestations and treatment options, including new herbicides, within the scope of this analysis and resulting decision.
The proposed action presents a forest-wide integrated weed management (IWM) strategy, for the prevention, eradication, suppression, and reduction of existing and future non-native invasive plant infestations. The IWM strategy is based on ecological factors and includes consideration of site conditions, other resource values, resource uses, NNIP characteristics, and potential effectiveness of control measures for specific circumstances.
The proposed action includes a wide range of treatment methods including options to use a combination of methods on the same site. It also was developed to minimize the risk of adverse impacts through resource protection measures. These resource protection measures are designed to minimize, avoid or mitigate adverse effects which could occur as a result of implementing proposed NNIP treatments on the Forest. The resource protection measures are based on Forest Plan direction and policy, best available science, and site-specific evaluations.
Selection of the most appropriate treatment practice, or combination of treatments, depends on numerous factors, including the size of the infestation, risk of NNIP expansion, species biology, environmental setting, potential impacts to other resources, and management objectives. Treatment practices available for use would include manual, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments. Chemical treatments include hand/selective and broadcast herbicide applications (including aerial application). Aerial herbicide application by helicopter could be used in selected locations of the Forest including designated wilderness areas. Aerial application provides a means to effectively treat infestations in isolated areas rapidly and efficiently, dramatically reducing the threat of further establishment or expansion.
The project also includes an adaptive management strategy to determine treatment of identified and future NNIP infestations. This adaptive management strategy consists of two principle components: The ability to effectively treat new infestations as they are detected; and, the ability to incorporate new technology as it becomes available.
This project would require an amendment to the Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project proposes use of herbicides in places and under conditions that were not foreseen when the existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines were developed in 1986. To meet the purpose and need for this project, it may be necessary to apply herbicide treatments to areas infested with non-native invasive plant species.
This amendment would change forestwide standards and guidelines applicable to all areas for wildlife (pages 31–34), grazing management (page 35 and replacement page 35B), soil and water (pages 40–41), fire and protection (replacement page 55), all species (pages 205–206), Mexican spotted owl (replacement page 206A), peregrine falcon (page 207), and northern goshawk (replacement page 208A and 208E). The amendment also would change standards and guidelines related to protection in management area 1C Capitan Mountains Wilderness (replacement page 62), management area 1F White Mountain Wilderness (replacement page 70), management area 1H RNA William G. Telfer Research Natural Area (page 77), and management area 3A RNA Upper McKittrick RNA (page 115). If adopted, this would be the eigthtennth amendment to the Forest Plan since its inception in 1986.
The Responsible Official for this project is the Lincoln National Forest, Forest Supervisor.
The Responsible Official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action. The Responsible Official also will decide whether or not to amend the Forest Plan.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
This proposed project is an activity implementing a land management plan and is subject to the objection process described in 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. As such, individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to file a predecisional objection must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3). Names and contact information submitted with comments will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Business Meeting.
Friday, June 17, 2016, at 12:30 p.m. EST.
Gerson Gomez, Media Advisor at telephone: (202) 376–8371 or email:
This business meeting is open to the public. If you would like to listen to the business meeting, please contact the above for the call-in information. Persons with hearing impairments, please contact the above for how to access the Federal Relay Service for the meeting.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376–8105 or at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The
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 OIRA
Bureau of Industry and Security.
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 August 8, 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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482–8093,
Foreign governments, on occasions, require U.S. importers of strategic commodities to furnish their foreign supplier with a U.S. Delivery Verification Certificate validating that the commodities shipped to the U.S. were in fact received. This procedure increases the effectiveness of controls on the international trade of strategic commodities.
Submitted electronically or on paper.
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 also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of 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 August 8, 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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482–8093,
The United States and several other countries have increased the effectiveness of their respective controls over international trade in strategic commodities by means of an Import Certificate procedure. For the U.S. importer, this procedure provides that, where required by the exporting country, the importer submits an international import certificate to the U.S. Government to certify that he/she will import commodities into the United States and will not reexport such commodities, except in accordance with the export control regulations of the United States. The U.S. Government, in turn, certifies that such representations have been made.
Submitted electronically or on paper.
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 also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 1, 2016 and May 26, 2016, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) directed the Department of Commerce (the Department) to implement its determinations under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), regarding 15 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations, which render them not inconsistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement findings in
The effective date for the determination covering the
Eric B. Greynolds or Kristen Johnson, 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) 482–6071 or (202) 482–4793, respectively.
On April 27, 2015, the Department informed interested parties that it was initiating proceedings under section 129 of the URAA to implement the recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in DS437.
The Department invited interested parties to comment on each of the section 129 preliminary determinations.
On April 1, 2016, USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the March 31, 2016, determinations, had been completed and USTR directed the Department to implement those determinations in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA. As explained below, those determinations applied to
On May 26, 2016, USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the April 26, 2016, and May 19, 2016, determinations had been completed and USTR directed the Department to implement those determinations in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA. Those determinations apply to
Section 129 of the URAA governs the nature and effect of determinations issued by the Department to implement findings by WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body. Specifically, section 129(b)(2) of the URAA provides that “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,” upon a written request from USTR, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.
The issues raised in the comments and rebuttal comments submitted by interested parties to these proceedings are addressed in the respective final determinations. The issues included in the respective final determinations are as follows: (1) Export Restraints (
The recalculated CVD rates, as included in the final determinations and which remain unchanged from the preliminary determinations for each company, are listed below. As indicated, we made changes to the net subsidy rates in certain proceedings (
As noted above, on April 1, 2016 and May 26, 2016, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, USTR directed the Department to implement these final determinations. With respect to all of the investigations except for
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of application for permit; request for comments.
NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a permit application for transshipment of Atlantic herring by Canadian vessels, submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary for NMFS to make a determination that the permit application can be approved.
Written comments must be received by June 23, 2016.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by docket NOAA–HQ–2016–0071, by any of the following methods:
Mark Wildman at (301) 427–8386 or by email at
Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue a transshipment permit authorizing a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state, to a point outside the United States. In addition, Public Law 104–297, section 105(e), directs the Secretary to issue section 204(d) permits for up to 14 Canadian transport vessels to receive Atlantic herring harvested by United States fishermen and to be used in sardine processing. Transshipment must occur from within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.
Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that “no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated . . . an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates.” NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.
NMFS received an application requesting authorization for four Canadian transport vessels to receive transfers of herring from United States purse seine vessels, stop seines, and weirs for the purpose of transporting the herring to Canada for processing. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69°30′ W. longitude and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in July, August, and September of 2016. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on July 28, August 25, and September 29, 2016.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on July 8, July 13, August 2, August 5, September 1, and September 6, 2016.
See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Fort Lauderdale, FL; Rosenberg, TX; and Panama City, FL.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Galveston, TX; Ronkonkoma, NY; Warwick, RI; Kenner, LA; Largo, FL; and Palm Coast, FL.
See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824–5399, or by fax: (727) 824–5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 121 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. July 28, 2016, 12 p.m.–4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn, 999 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.
2. August 25, 2016, 12 p.m.–4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 3312 Vista Drive, Rosenberg, TX 77471.
3. September 29, 2016, 12 p.m.–4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn, 7115 Coastal Palms Boulevard, Panama City, FL 32408.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 232 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. July 8, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Doubletree Hotel, 1702 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77550.
2. July 13, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 3485 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.
3. August 2, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886.
4. August 5, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
5. September 1, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo FL 33770.
6. September 6, 2016, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 55 Town Center Boulevard, Palm Coast, FL 32164.
To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682–0158.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 156th meeting.
The meeting will be held on June 28–29, 2016. The Council will convene on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and will reconvene on Wednesday, June 29, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Buccaneer Hotel, 5007 Shoys, Christiansted, USVI 00820.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766–5926.
The Council will hold its 156th regular Council Meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
(5-minutes presentations)
The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.
The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be subjects for formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766–5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice.
NOAA publishes this notice to amend 74
Quay Dortch, ECOHAB Program Coordinator and PCMHAB Program Manager, 301/713–3338 ext 157,
The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA), as amended, codified at 33 U.S.C. 4001–4009, authorized the establishment of three national competitive programs on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014, Public Law 113–124; authorized the continuation of these programs. NOAA implements HABHRCA through the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Program, the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom (MERHAB) Program and the Prevention, Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms (PCMHAB) Program. ECOHAB provides coastal managers with the understanding, tools, and models to predict the development, extent, and toxicity of HABs and their impacts, leading to early warning and new prevention and mitigation strategies. MERHAB builds capacity and enhances partnerships between managers, researchers, and private industry to improve monitoring for HAB cells and toxins and responding to HAB events. The PCM HAB program transitions promising technologies and strategies for preventing, controlling, or mitigating HABs and their impacts from development through demonstration and technology transfer for field application by end-users. A regional rotation for the three Harmful Algal Blooms Programs was implemented in Fiscal Year 2009. All three regions have been rotated once and a rotation cycle is now complete. Beginning in 2016, the regional rotation will not be used to define the geographic scope of future competitions. Hereafter, the necessary objectives, procedures, and guidance for Harmful Algal Bloom funding competitions will be posted in announcements on the OMB-designated government wide Web site for finding and applying for Federal financial assistance, currently
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on June 27, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC) will hold a public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC, headquarters. The MRAC will discuss: (1) The CCP Risk Management Subcommittee's draft recommendations on how Central Counterparties (CCPs) can better coordinate their efforts in preparing for the default of a significant clearing member, and (2) the role of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and CFTC in the resolution of both banks and CCPs.
The meeting will be held on June 27, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by June 27, 2016.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by mail to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Secretary of the Commission, or by electronic mail to:
Petal Walker, MRAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418–5010.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site,
5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(2).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016.
You may submit comments, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden. Please refer to this notice in any correspondence. Comments, identified by “CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey,” and Collection Number 3038—NEW may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• The Agency Web site, via its Comments Online process:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method, and identify that it is for the “SmartCheck Campaign Annual Tracking Survey.”
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Nisha Smalls, Lead Customer Outreach Specialist, 202–418–5000,
Under the PRA, federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they collect or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting . . . facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format [from] ten or more persons.” An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c). The Commission is submitting this collection of information to OMB for approval and assigning of a collection number, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10.
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 OCEO will use the information collected in the survey to refine the methods used to inform the public about how to best detect and report financial fraud. This will be done by creating a final summary report that includes key findings from the survey.
Findings from the summary report will be used to directionally inform the outreach efforts that the CFTC undertakes concerning helping customers avoid financial fraud.
The survey will be administered using an online survey tool. The online modality approach will allow presentation of test material to participants in a more convenient and time-efficient manner than other collection methods such as mall intercepts. The online method also allows for a quicker turnaround for data collection. No other collection methods will be used.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The proposed survey questions appear below:
1. When it comes to family and personal investments like stocks, mutual funds, or other trading products, how likely are you to be involved in making decisions for your household?
2. Below is a list of financial products. Please select all that you currently are invested in or have invested in.
Please answer yes or no to each of the following questions.
Below are a number of actions that you may or may not be likely to complete. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to complete the actions using the scale below.
If you were considering investing with someone you had not invested with before, how likely are you to:
17. Generally speaking, how concerned are you about unknowingly being part of a fraudulent investment?
18. If you
19. If you became aware that an investment you were
20. Which, if any, of the following do you think are potential signs of investment fraud? If the person selling the investment . . .
Below are a number of statements with which you may or may not agree. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.
44 U.S.C. 3501
On May 4, 2016, Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the R.D. Bailey Dam Hydroelectric Project (R.D. Bailey Project or project) to be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' R.D. Bailey Dam on the Guyandotte River in Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 90-foot-long by 45-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse to be located downstream on the tailrace side of R.D. Bailey Dam; (2) a new 12-foot by 9-foot by 250-foot-long concrete conduit connecting the existing outlet tunnel with the powerhouse; (3) two 5-megawatt (MW) vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 10 MW; (4) a new 120-foot-long by 80-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 60-foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 10-mega-volt-ampere 4.16/69-kilovolt (kV) three-phase step-up transformer; (6) a new 0.6-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The R.D. Bailey Project would have an estimated annual generation of 38.5 gigawatt-hours.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380, Office of Energy Projects staff has reviewed applications for original licenses for the Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13757–002), Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13761–002), and Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13768–002) on the Ohio River. These projects are referred to collectively as the Ohio River Projects.
The projects would all be located at existing locks and dams owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River near Emsworth, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County at river mile (RM) 6.2. The Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River near Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County at RM 6.8. The Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River downstream of Monaca, Pennsylvania, in Beaver County at RM 31.7. The projects would collectively occupy 17.1 acres of federal land.
Staff has prepared a multi-project environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental effects of the three projects and concludes that constructing and operating the projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Nicholas Ettema at (202) 502–6565 or by email at
On May 13, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to discuss select issues related to the petition for rulemaking submitted by the American Wind Energy Association in Docket No. RM15–21–000 and other interconnection-related issues, including the interconnection of electric storage.
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on any or all of the questions listed in the attachment to this Notice. We emphasize that commenters need not answer all of the questions. We encourage commenters to submit new or additional information in response to these questions rather than information that was previously submitted in Docket Nos. RM16–12–000 and/or RM15–21–000. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the numbering of the attached questions and identify to what extent their responses are generally applicable or pertain to a particular RTO/ISO. Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in this docket, including technical conference transcripts. These comments must be filed with the Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on June 20, 2016.
For more information about this Notice, please contact:
Take notice that on June 1, 2016, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Michigan South Central Power Agency (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Michigan Electric Transmission Company (Respondent) alleging that Respondent has failed to comply with Section19.1(i) of the Project I Transmission Ownership and Operating Agreement between Complainant and Respondent, as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf XPress Project (GXP) involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on April 29, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP16–361–000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16–361–000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows: FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Gulf Xpress Project, Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., Cane Ridge High School, 12848 Old Hickory Boulevard, Antioch, TN 37013.
The doors will open at 5 p.m. at which time we will begin our sign up of speakers for the meetings. For the hour prior to the start of the meeting, Columbia Gulf representatives will be present with maps depicting the project area and to answer questions.
The scoping meeting will begin at 6 p.m. with a description of our environmental review process by Commission staff, after which speakers will be called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their comments or at 10 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that depending on the number of people signed up to speak, there may be a time limit of 3 minutes to present comments, and speakers should structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter to ensure comments are accurately recorded. The transcript of the meeting will be entered into the formal record of the Commission proceeding.
Please note this is not your only opportunity to provide public input; refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.
The GXP would increase the existing transportation capacity of Columbia Gulf's system by about 860,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas. According to Columbia Gulf, its project is necessary to provide additional pipeline capacity to meet contracted-for firm transportation demand. The proposed facilities would enable shippers the opportunity to transport natural gas to Gulf Coast high-demand markets, markets in Mississippi and Louisiana that are accessible through delivery points along Columbia Gulf's system, and markets accessible through other interstate pipeline connected to Columbia Gulf's system. Columbia Gulf has entered into binding precedent agreements for 100 percent of the GXP capacity.
For the GXP, Columbia Gulf proposes to construct, operate, and maintain seven new natural gas-fired turbine-driven compressor stations:
• The Morehead Compressor Station, a 44,800-horsepower (hp) compressor station in Rowan County, Kentucky;
• the Paint Lick Compressor Station, a 41,000-hp compressor station in Garrard County, Kentucky;
• the Goodluck Compressor Station, a 31,8000-hp compressor station in Metcalfe County, Kentucky;
• the Cane Ridge Compressor Station, a 41,000-hp compressor station in Davidson County, Tennessee;
• the Clifton Junction Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Wayne County, Tennessee;
• the New Albany Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Union County, Mississippi; and
• the Holcomb Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Grenada County, Mississippi.
The GXP would also involve:
• Installation of an additional 15,900 hp of compression at the anticipated Grayson Compressor Station
• demolition and construction of a new flow control building to upgrade
All new compressor stations would include a building to house the compressors; filter/separator and gas cooling equipment; suction and discharge piping; and appurtenant facilities. All stations would be fenced and include a permanent access road.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
The GXP would temporarily disturb about 198 acres during construction with approximately 82 acres converted to permanent use for station operations. At the Grayson Compressor Station site, no additional land would be disturbed during construction beyond that used for the original facility. At the Leach C Meter Station, approximately 1.4 acres of land outside the existing station fence line would be temporarily disturbed during construction. All permanent modifications at the Leach C Meter Station would occur within the existing facility resulting in no new permanent impacts from station operations.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• socioeconomics;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia Gulf. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
• air quality and noise impacts;
• wildlife impacts;
• alternative compressor station locations; and
• health and safety of nearby residences during the operation of the proposed facilities.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all who own homes within certain distances of the compressor and meter station facilities and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
You may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208–FERC or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
On June 15, 2016, Commission staff will hold a conference call with Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) beginning at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the conference call is to discuss tariff administration issues related to MISO's pending compliance filings in the above-captioned proceedings to ensure that the versions of the tariff sheets filed are accurate and complete.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to listen to the conference call. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
The conference call will not be webcast or transcribed. However, an audio listen-only line will be provided. Those wishing to access the listen-only line must email Sarah McKinley (
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For additional information, please contact Christopher Gore at (202) 502–8507,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that, in order to participate in the post-Incentive Auction special displacement window, low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations must be operating on the date that the Channel Reassignment Public Notice is released following the completion of the reverse auction.
Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau to announce, after release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice and after eligible full power and Class A television stations have an opportunity to file construction permit applications for their new facilities, including an alternative channel or expanded facility, a limited window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations to submit displacement applications. The Commission's rules limit eligibility to file in the displacement window to “operating low power TV and TV translator stations that are displaced . . . as a result of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction.” The Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau to announce the terms of the limited displacement window consistent with the approach outlined in the Incentive Auction R&O.
For these purposes, the Media announces that it interprets an “operating” LPTV or TV translator station that is displaced as a result of the incentive auction to mean one that is operating on the date of release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Moreover, the Media Bureau clarifies that for these purposes a station is “operating” if it has licensed its authorized construction permit facilities or has an application for a license to cover on file with the Commission on that date. LPTV stations will not be required to actually cease operations on their current channels until well after the Channel Reassignment Public Notice is released. But the new full power and Class A channel assignments announced in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice and the new 600 MHz band plan announced contemporaneously will enable LPTV stations to determine whether they will eventually be required to move from their current channel to accommodate a new primary licensee and thus whether they would wish to consider filing for a displacement channel during the special displacement window. Determining the universe of displaced operating LPTV stations as of the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice will also assist the Media Bureau in identifying channels that can be proposed by displaced stations based on repacking and optimization software and issuing a public notice listing potential channel
By announcing the deadline for identifying operating LPTV stations now, well in advance of the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks to provide LPTV and TV translator station permittees with “sufficient warning of this crucial deadline to allow them to complete construction and license permitted facilities.” Permittees of digital LPTV and TV translators that are not operating on the date of release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice will have to wait until the completion of the special displacement window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations before being able to file a displacement application and propose a channel from the smaller universe of unused television channels.
The Media Bureau also reminds LPTV and TV translator permittees that the Commission has extended the construction deadline for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations to the new digital transition date for the LPTV and TV translator service, which is 51 months after the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Thus, any construction efforts they may make between now and release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice are completely voluntary.
This action is taken by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated by 47 CFR 0.283 of the Commission's rules.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
Document 2016–12966, June 1, 2016.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission has cancelled the meeting previously scheduled in
Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 5, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2016.
The purpose of this evaluation is to respond to a set of cross-cutting evaluation questions posed by the Children's Bureau. This new data collection is the second part of a larger data collection effort being conducted for the evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. The first group of instruments for this evaluation has already been submitted, and a request for clearance has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (see
The Cross-Center Evaluation will examine: The extent to which key partners across and within the Centers are collaborating; whether the capacity building service interventions offered by the Centers are evaluable; the degree to which Centers follow common protocols; whether service interventions are delivered or performed as designed; how satisfied recipients are with the services received; how effective the service interventions were; which service approaches were most effective and under what conditions; and the costs of services. The Cross-Center Evaluation is utilizing a longitudinal mixed methods approach to evaluate the Centers' services as they develop and mature over the course of the study period.
Multiple data collection strategies will be used to efficiently capture quantitative and qualitative data to enable analyses that address each evaluation question. The first set of Cross-Center and Center-specific instruments submitted as part of the larger information collection included: Satisfaction surveys to assess recipients' satisfaction; a leadership interview, administered to all State child welfare directors, Tribal child welfare directors, and CIP coordinators that receive services; a Web-based collaboration survey, administered to the directors and staff of the three Centers; assessment tools; and service-specific feedback forms.
This second group of data sources proposed for the Cross-Center Evaluation in this notice include: (1) A capacity survey to capture perceived changes in organizational capacity after receiving Center services; (2) a foundational assessment to capture contextual data regarding the organizational health and functioning of child welfare agencies and courts; (3) a follow-up survey that will examine short-term and intermediate outcomes among CIPs that receive different levels of tailored services following continuous quality improvement (CQI) workshops; and(4)a key informant survey and interview to examine how capacity building services are incorporated into state and tribal activities to support implementation of Public Law 113–183. Additional Center-specific data sources proposed in this notice include (1) registration forms such as webinar and CapLEARN (learning management system) registration forms and (2) service-specific feedback forms and interviews, such as the Center for States Tailored Services interviews and the Center for Courts Universal and Constituency Services survey.
Respondents of this second set of data collection instruments will include (1) child welfare agency staff and stakeholders who directly receive services that have been tailored to the needs of their jurisdiction and (2) CIP coordinators, CIP Directors, and other project staff. The proposed data collection will span three years.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number OMB No. 0937–0025, which expires on November 30, 2016. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 8, 2016.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS–OS–60D for reference.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension of a previously approved collection of information titled, “Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts,” OMB Control Number 0917–0037. IHS is requesting OMB to approve an extension for this collection, which expires on July 31, 2016.
Send your written comments and suggestions regarding the information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for IHS.
To request more information on the collection, or to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instruction(s), contact Mr. Chris Buchanan by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
This previously approved information collection project was last published in the
Representatives of the IHS seek renewal of the approval for information collections conducted under 25 CFR part 900, implementing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as amended (25 U.S.C. 450
The information requirements for this rule represent significant differences from other agencies in several respects. Under the Act, the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services is directed to enter into self-determination contracts with Tribes upon request, unless specific declination criteria apply, and, generally, Tribes may renew these contracts annually, whereas other agencies provide grants on a discretionary or competitive basis. Additionally, IHS awards contracts for multiple programs whereas other agencies usually award single grants to Tribes.
The IHS uses the information collected to determine applicant eligibility, evaluate applicant capabilities, protect the service population, safeguard Federal funds and other resources, and permit the Federal agency to administer and evaluate contract programs. Tribal governments or Tribal organizations provide the information by submitting contract proposals, and related information, to the IHS, as required under Public Law 93–638. No third party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.
The IHS requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection 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 (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
It is IHS policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500, telephone 202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the first quarter of calendar year 2016.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the first quarter of calendar year 2016) before the next report is published (the second quarter of calendar year 2016), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the first quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2).
Project/Activity: Clackamas County, OR requested a waiver of 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) in order to shorten its citizen comment period for a Consolidated Plan amendment in order to provide emergency relocation assistance to qualified displaced low- and moderate-income residents of two apartment complexes that required an emergency evacuation in the storm affected area that experienced prolonged periods of heavy rainfall resulting in flooding, electrical outages, and significant landslides.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) requires that citizens be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial amendments to its consolidated plan. The citizen participation plan requires that citizens be given no less than 30 days to comment on substantial amendments before they are implemented. The city asked to shorten its citizen comment period to seven days so that it may quickly reallocate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on the effects of the extreme winter storms.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: January 11, 2016.
Reason Waived: The county was allowed to shorten its comment period from 30 days to 7 days so it could provide emergency relocation assistance more quickly to qualified displaced low- and moderate-income residents displaced by an evacuation order.
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–4548.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6).
Project/Activity: The City of Salem, OR, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6), which prohibits additional assistance under HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) to a project previously assisted with HOME funds during the period of affordability. The City requested this waiver in order to invest $210,330 of HOME funds into three HOME rental projects—Chemawa Village, Marilyn Townhomes, and Renaissance Place.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) prohibits, except for one year after project completion, HOME assistance from being provided to a project that was previously assisted with HOME funds during the period of affordability.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: March 11, 2016.
Reason Waived: In 2013, HUD was notified that Salem Kaiser Community Development Corporation (SKCDC), responsible for 148 HOME-assisted rental units in 10 properties, was experiencing financial and operational issues. HUD provided extensive technical assistance and in 2014 ownership of SKCDC's portfolio was transferred to Catholic Community Service Foundation (CCSF). A portfolio analysis indicated that each of the three projects—Chemawa Village, Marilyn Townhomes, and Renaissance Place—had negative net operating income, was unable to service debt flow, had significant deferred maintenance, and had no replacement reserve. The City sought this waiver to assist CCSF in preserving the affordable HOME-assisted units, by investing $210,330 of HOME funds, and an additional $251,808 of CDBG funds, to rehabilitate 21 HOME units. The investment of additional HOME funds is still within the HOME maximum per-unit subsidy limits at 24 CFR 92.205(a). In addition, as a condition of the waiver, HUD is requiring that the City extend the periods of affordability for each of the three projects for an additional five years.
Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–2684.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(g).
Project/Activity: In September 2014, Snohomish County, WA received a $1.5 million supplemental CDBG award that was reallocated under section 106(c)(4) of the Housing and Community Development Act. The funds were to be used as a portion of the requisite match for Hazard Mitigation Program Grant funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for voluntary buyouts of properties impacted by the State Road 530 Flooding and Mudslide disaster.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 570.200(g) requires that recipients limit the amount of CDBG funds obligated for planning and administration during each program year to an amount no greater than 20 percent of the sum of its grant(s) made for that program year plus the program income received by the recipient and its subrecipients during that program year.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: January 29, 2016.
Reason Waived: The county did not receive its supplemental funds until midway through its 2014 program year and anticipated the need for additional administrative and planning obligations associated with the buyout activities, as it may take several years to complete the activities and expend the supplemental CDBG funds.
The waiver of the provisions of 24 CFR 570.200(g) allows the obligation of up to 20 percent of its supplemental award over the life of the grant, rather than solely during program year 2014. Absent a waiver, the county would effectively be prevented from using the statutorily-allowed percentage of funds for administrative and planning purposes needed to carry out activities under its supplemental award.
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–4548.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(h).
Project/Activity: On January 28, 2016, HUD issued a CPD Notice CPD–16–01
Nature of Requirement: The Entitlement CDBG program regulations provide for
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: January 6, 2016, for effect on October 21, 2015.
Reason Waived: Under the provisions of the Notice, a grantee's action plan may not be submitted to (and thus received by) HUD until several months after the grantee's program year start date. Lengthy delays in the receipt of annual appropriations by HUD, and implementation of the policy to delay submission of FY 2016 Action Plans, may have negative consequences for CDBG grantees that intend to incur eligible costs prior to the award of FY 2016 funding. Some activities might otherwise be interrupted while implementing these revised procedures. In addition, grantees might not otherwise be able to use CDBG funds for planning and administrative costs of administering their programs. In order to address communities' needs and to ensure that programs can continue without disturbance, this waiver will allow grantees to incur pre-award costs on a timetable comparable to that under which grantees have operated in past years. This waiver is available for use by any applicable CDBG grantee whose action plan submission is delayed past the normal submission date because of delayed enactment of FY 2016 appropriations for the Department. This waiver authority is only in effect until August 16, 2016.
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–4548.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii).
Project/Activity: The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles requested a waiver of 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii) to allow more time to complete the rehabilitation of the Single Room Occupancy Marion Hotel located at 642 Crocker Street.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii) provides that the owner must complete the rehabilitation of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project and the contract executed within 12 months of the execution of the Annual Contributions Contract.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistance Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: February 19, 2016.
Reason Waived: The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles had two potential developers that backed out of the project for financial and other reasons. HUD determined that the new developer has a financially feasible project that would require at least 7 months to complete the project, which is beyond the time limitation of the execution of the Annual Contributions Contract.
Contact: Norman Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5015.
• Regulation: Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Notice published on October 19, 2010, at 75 FR 64322 (II.H.3.F) in accordance with Title XII of Division A under the heading Community Planning and Development: Community Development Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Project/Activity: Richland County, OH requested a waiver of the 10 percent demolition cap under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) which restricts grantees from spending more than 10 percent of total grant funds on demolition activities. The demolition waiver request combined Richland County's program income ($50,062.41) with an earlier approved demolition waiver of $420,050, that total $470,112.41.
These funds will be used to demolish blighted and vacant structures that are becoming prevalent in Richland County, specifically in the City of Mansfield. The use of these funds in target areas will allow the county to remove hazards and the destabilizing influence of blighted properties, while adding value to the neighborhood stabilization strategy the county has undertaken. The ability to use program income for demolition activities will allow the county to close-out their NSP3 grant once these funds are exhausted.
Nature of Requirement: Section II.H.3.F of the NSP3 Notice provides that a grantee may not use more than ten percent of its grant for demolition activities.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: March 25, 2016.
Reason Waived: The use of these funds in target areas will allow Richland County to remove hazards and the destabilizing influence of blighted properties, while adding value to the neighborhood stabilization strategy the county has undertaken. The county's neighborhood stabilization strategy is in response to a depressed housing market that has seen Richland County incur 771 foreclosures in 2014, a twelve percent increase from the 684 foreclosures the county suffered in 2013. The ability to use program income for demolition activities will allow the county to close-out their NSP3 grant once these funds are exhausted.
Contact: Jessie Handforth Kome, Deputy Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5539.
• Regulation: Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Notice published on October 19, 2010, at 75 FR 64322 (II.H.3.F) in accordance with Title XII of Division A under the heading Community Planning and Development: Community Development Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Project/Activity: Saginaw, MI requested a waiver of the 10 percent demolition cap under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) which restricts grantees from spending more than 10 percent of total grant funds on demolition activities. The demolition waiver request submitted was for $97,614 or eight percent of its NSP3 allocation, and was for the continued demolition and removal of hazards and blighted properties.
Nature of Requirement: Section II.H.3.F of the NSP3 Notice provides that a grantee may not use more than 10 percent of its grant for demolition activities.
Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: February 24, 2016.
Reason Waived: The market conditions in the Saginaw metro area require a mix of demolition of unsafe structures coupled with the preservation of housing units to stabilize communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. The housing vacancy rate in the NSP target area fluctuates between eighteen to 35 percent as of early 2016, despite the fact that the unemployment rate in the immediate area has steadily improved. The use of the final $97,614 is the most effective means to meet the needs of the Saginaw community.
Contact: Jessie Handforth Kome, Deputy Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5539.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
Project/Activity: Woodland Christian Towers, FHA Project Number 114–44801T, Houston, Texas. Woodland Christian Towers, Incorporated (Owner) seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on the subject project.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”
Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: February 1, 2016.
Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to repay the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan in full when it became due. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 30 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.
Contact: James Wyatt, Account Executive, Field Asset Management and Program Administration Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6172, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–2519.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 203.41 and 24 CFR 206.45.
Project/Activity: Properties eligible for FHA-insured mortgages.
Nature of Requirement: The Amended and Restated Condominium Bylaws of the Waterway Pines condominium project contains restrictions on conveyance rendering this project, as provided in 24 CFR 203.41, ineligible for FHA approval. Additionally, any Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) secured by a dwelling subject to the covenants is ineligible, a provided in 24 CFR 206.45, for FHA insurance as HECM properties are required to be freely marketable and only permits a property to have a restriction on conveyance when permitted. The waiver is applicable to issuance of a case number for the property located at 367 Timberlake Drive E, Unit #125, Holland, Michigan 49424 only.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: February 29, 2016.
Reason Waived: Due to extenuating circumstances, this waiver was issued so that the purchaser did not lose the opportunity to purchase an affordable housing unit based on the Association Board's reluctance to amend the legal documents to obtain FHA condominium project approval.
Contact: Elissa O. Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–2121.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.
Project/Activity: Les Mason is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 “Bathroom” of FHA's regulations. The project is located in Crever Coeur, MO.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 232.7 mandates in a board and care home or assisted living facility that not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: February 29, 2016.
Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 11: 1. The project meets the State of Missouri's licensing requirements for bathing and toileting facilities.
Contact: Vance T. Morris, Operations Manager, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402–2419.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 266.638(b) and (d).
Project/Activity: Louisiana Housing Corporation (LHC), New Orleans, Louisiana Project, St. Martin Manor Project Number: 064–98014, Project: Villa Additions, Project Number: 064–98017.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at CFR 266.638(b) and (d) for debenture maturity and interest rate requirement is that the HFA Debenture shall, during the extended period, continue to bear interest as described below at HUD's published debenture rate at the earlier of initial endorsement or final endorsement. The HFA debenture extension shall bear interest at HUD's published debenture rate at the earlier of initial endorsement or final endorsement.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: March 30, 2016.
Reason Waived: The waiver will ensure that LHC is able to complete the re-development of the two properties and replace needed affordable housing in New Orleans. The waiver is an extension of a previously granted waiver for the debenture interest accruals, and the Katrina related claims were related to an extraordinary natural disaster.
Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–8386.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 266.100(a)(5).
Project/Activity: Utah Housing Corporation (UHC), West Valley City, Utah.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 266.100(a)(5) requires housing finance agencies seeking participation in the Section 542(c) HFA Risk Sharing program to have at least 5 years of experience in multifamily underwriting.
Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: March 30, 2016.
Reason Waived: HUD determined that UHC is a qualified and experienced agency and meets the basic program qualifications and documented significant financial capacity to participate in the Risk Sharing Program. UHC's waiver approval and participating in the Risk Sharing Program are subject to the following conditions: (1) UHC participation will be limited to Level I (50/50) risk share only (UHC has the option to apply for level II risk share status once five years of successful underwriting has been achieved.); (2) UHC will confirm that it continues to hold an issuer rating of “A” or better from a national credit rating agency; (3) UHC will operate under a probationary period, until such time as it has obtained two Firm Commitments for two risk share transactions; and (4) UHC will work with the Denver Hub to complete a quality assurance review to ensure that UHC has complied with its own procedures for project underwriting.
Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–8386.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
Project/Activity: Campbell Ridge Apartments, King, NC, Project Number: 053–HD255/NC19–Q101–004.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: January 7, 2016.
Reason Waived: Additional time was needed for the office to update the firm commitment package.
Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5787.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
Project/Activity: VOA Living Center of Lake City, Lake City, FL, Project Number: 063–HD030/FL29–Q101–004.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: February 28, 2016.
Reason Waived: Additional time was needed for the office to review the initial closing package.
Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5787.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
Project/Activity: Victoria at COMM22, San Diego, CA, Project Number: 129–EE036/CA33–S101–001.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: March 31, 2016.
Reason Waived: Additional time was needed to meet other requirements of the State of California and the tax credit investor for receipt of their loans and capital contributions.
Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–5787.
• Regulation: Waiver of Requirements of Mortgagee Letter 2011–22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements.
Project/Activity: Properties eligible for FHA-insured mortgages.
Nature of Requirement: FHA's current insurance requirement is that a HOA maintain master master/blanket hazard and liability property insurance for the replacement cost of the entire project, including the structures.
Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
Date Granted: January 5, 2016.
Reason Waived: In some circumstances, HOA legal governing documents assign the responsibility to the individual unit owner to obtain and maintain insurance coverage for certain condominium project types; Manufactured Housing Condominium Project (MHCP), Detached Condominium Housing Project (DCHP), and Common Interest Housing Development (CIHD). To assist in ensuring the continued availability of affordable housing, a waiver of the current condominium unit insurance requirements that allow the individual unit owner to obtain and maintain their own insurance coverage is required. The issuance of the waiver is consistent with the Department's objectives to expand access to mortgage credit, while providing appropriate safeguards to waive the insurance requirements.
Contact: Elissa O. Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–2121.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).
Project/Activity: Haverhill Housing Authority (MA087).
Nature of Requirement: The regulations establish certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A–133.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 23, 2016.
Reason Waived: The HA is a Section 8 only entity with the Housing Choice Program, requesting additional time to submit its audited financial data for fiscal year end (FYE) March 31, 2015. The agency's fee accountant was unable to complete a scheduled merger with an auditing firm in time enough to perform and submit the audited information. The HA has until March 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to the Department. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report.
This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.
Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475–7908.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).
Project/Activity: Mohave County Housing Authority (AZ043).
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A–133.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 7, 2016.
Reason Waived: The (HA is a Section 8 only entity requesting additional time to submit its audited financial data for its fiscal year end (FYE) of June 30, 2015. The County-wide report for the state of Arizona's Office of the Auditor General had been delayed due to incomplete information of pension financial liability; the HA is requesting a 60-day extension to align with the state's audited financial report. The HA has until May 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to HUD. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report.
This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.
Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475–7908.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).
Project/Activity: Tallahassee Housing Authority (FL073).
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A–133.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 25, 2016.
Reason Waived: The HA is requesting an additional time to submit its audited financial data for its fiscal year end (FYE) of June 30, 2015. The HAs cash balances for FY 2014 and FY 2015 were not reconciled as a result of converting to a new accounting system and a new software system. Also, the cash transactions were posted to incorrect funds and charged to incorrect bank accounts which rendered the HA's records unreliable resulting in the HA's auditor issuing a Disclaimer of opinion for FYE June 30, 2014, audited financial statements, and issued an adverse opinion on the Major Federal Program Compliance for the Housing Choice Vouchers program and the Mainstream Vouchers program. In addition, the Finance Supervisor was fired as a result of fraud allegations and the Finance Director resigned. The HA has until May 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to HUD. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report. This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.
Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475–7908.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) in Los Angeles, California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2) so that it could establish different payment standard amounts for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) participants.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: January 28, 2016.
Reason Waived: HACLA wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD–VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) in
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 5, 2016.
Reason Waived: HACoLA wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD–VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of the City of Santa Rosa in Santa Rosa (HACSR), California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2) so that it could establish different payment standard amounts for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) participants.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 10, 2016.
Reason Waived: HACSR wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD–VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(5).
Project/Activity: Burleigh County Housing Authority (BCHA) in Bismarck, North Dakota, requested waivers of 24 CFR 982.503(c), (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(5) so that it could establish exception payment standards at 120 percent of the FMRs due to oil exploration's effect on housing.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. The regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 26, 2016.
Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity and lack of affordable housing due to natural resource exploration.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) in Hayward California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: January 7, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: New York Homes and Community Renewal (NYHCR), in New York, New York requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: January 7, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
•
Project/Activity: Peninsula Housing Authority (PHA) in Port Angeles, Washington, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 3, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Howard County Housing (HCH) in Columbia, Maryland, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 5, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Boston Housing Authority (BHA) in Boston, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 26, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Dedham Housing Authority (DHA) in Dedham, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 26, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Medford Housing Authority (MHA) in Medford, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 23, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Colorado Division of Housing (CDH) in Denver, Colorado, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 30, 2016.
Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Deerfield Beach Housing Authority (DBHA) in Deerfield Beach, Florida, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: February 24, 2016.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the DBHA's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Lake County Housing Authority (LCHA) in Grayslake, Illinois, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 3, 2016.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the LCHA's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HCSALC) in Eugene, Oregon, requested a waiver of 24
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
Date Granted: March 7, 2016.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted for the HCSALC's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Sedalia Housing Authority (SHA) in Sedalia, Missouri, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: March 29, 2016.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the SHA's fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708–0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 905.314.
Project/Activity: The Chester Housing Authority (CHA) requested a good cause waiver to transfer 33 percent of its 2016 Capital Fund Formula Grant into BLI 1406-Operations, in part to fund certain anticrime measures.
Nature of Requirement: In accordance with 24 CFR 905.314, PHAs may use Operating Funds for anticrime and antidrug activities, including costs of providing adequate security for public housing residents, including above-baseline service agreements.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: May 22, 2016.
Reason Waived: CHA's letter of March 2016 included all the information provided by the Capital Fund Processing Guidance to make a good cause determination. Specifically, CHA requested $628,435.00 to be transferred to Budget Line Item 1406 for Operations. CHA provided recent crime data at the developments and indicated the specific activities that it plans to use the funds for.
Contact: Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20140, telephone (202) 402–4181.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 905.314.
Project/Activity: The Westmoreland County Housing Authority (WCHA) requested a good cause waiver to transfer 27 percent of its 2016 Capital Fund Formula Grant into BLI 1406-Operations, in part to fund certain anticrime measures.
Nature of Requirement: In accordance 24 CFR 905.314, PHAs may use Operating Funds for anticrime and antidrug activities, including costs of providing adequate security for public housing residents, including above-baseline service agreements.
Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: May 29, 2016.
Reason Waived: WCHA's letter of March 2016 included all the information provided by the Capital Fund Processing Guidance to make a good cause determination. Specifically, WCHA requested $550,086 to be transferred to Budget Line Item 1406 for Operations. WCHA provided recent crime data at the developments and indicated the specific activities that it plans to use the funds for.
Contact: Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20140, telephone (202) 402–4181.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on November 30, 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.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by August 8, 2016.
Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or
To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at
On June 6, 2016, we published a final rule (81 FR 36388), Revision of the Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephant (
When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives discretion to the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations that he or she “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.” In response to an unprecedented increase in poaching of elephants across Africa and the escalation of the illegal trade in ivory, we reevaluated the provisions of the existing ESA 4(d) rule for the African elephant. We revised the 4(d) rule by adopting measures that are necessary and advisable for the current conservation needs of the species, based on our evaluation of the current threats to the African elephant and the comments received from the public. The poaching crisis is driven by demand for elephant ivory. The final rule allows us to more strictly regulate trade in African elephant ivory and to help ensure that the U.S. ivory market is not contributing to the poaching of elephants in Africa.
Currently, import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
We requested that OMB approve, on an emergency basis, our request to collect information associated with permits to import African elephant sport-hunted trophies from Appendix-II populations. We asked for emergency approval because of the potential negative effects of delaying publication of the final 4(d) rule. OMB approved our request and assigned OMB Control No. 1018–0164, which expires November 30, 2016.
We will ask OMB to grant regular approval (3 years) for this information collection. If OMB grants regular approval, we will include the burden associated with the expected 300 additional applications in OMB Control Number 1018–0093 when we renew the approval in May 2017.
We 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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) requests nominations of individuals to serve on the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board). There are three positions available. The BIE will consider nominations received in response to this request for nominations, as well as other sources.
Please submit nominations by July 11, 2016.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, telephone 505–563–5274, or fax to 505–563–5281.
Contact Ms. Sue Bement, DFO, at the above listed address and telephone number.
The Advisory Board was established in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(b). The following provides information about the Committee, the membership, and the nomination process.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will provide guidance, advice, and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA.
(b) The Advisory Board will:
(1) Provide advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within the BIE and with other local, State, and Federal agencies;
(2) Provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities;
(3) Serve as advocates for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and
(4) Provide advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2);
(5) Provide advice and recommend policies concerning effective inter- and intra- agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter- and intra- agency programs and activities; and
(6) Report and direct all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director, BIE with a courtesy copy to the DFO.
(a) Under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(6), the Advisory Board will be composed of up to 15 individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one member representing each of the following interests: Indians with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers; State education officials; local education officials; State interagency coordinating councils (for States having Indian reservations); Tribal representatives or Tribal organization representatives; and other members representing the various divisions and entities of the BIE.
(b) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the chairperson; however, the chairperson and other Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government Service under 5 U.S.C. 5703.
(b) A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the appropriate ethics official. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.
(c) The Advisory Board meets at least twice per year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or the DFO.
(d) All Advisory Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with FACA regulations.
(a) Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally recognized Tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above.
(b) Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities.
(c) Nominees must have the ability to attend Advisory Board meetings, carry out Advisory Board assignments, participate in teleconference calls, and work in groups.
(d) The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunities in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership, which is bound by the Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).
If you wish to nominate someone for appointment to the Advisory Board, please do not make the nomination until the person has agreed to have his or her name submitted to the BIE for this purpose.
Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. The nomination application, which can be found on the BIE Web site at
This collection of information is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076–0179, “Solicitation of Nominations for the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children.”
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey; Colorado.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plats listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plats will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plats described in this notice will happen on July 11, 2016.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
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 plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 40
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 41 North, Range 11 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 30, 2016.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 18 South, Range 70 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on April 18, 2016.
The plat, in 2 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 16 in Township 4 North, Range 71 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 13, 2016.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 36 North, Range 17 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 23, 2016.
The field notes of the remonumentation of certain original corners in Township 27 South, Range 47 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 27, 2016.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado.
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office, published a Notice of Stay of Filing of Plat, in the
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen on July 11, 2016.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) Advisory Council (Council) will meet as indicated below.
The Council will meet July 13, 2016, and July 27, 2016. Any adjustments to these meetings will be advertised on the Dominguez-Escalante NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP) Web site:
The July 13 meeting will be held at the Mesa County Old Courthouse, 544 Rood Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81501. The July 27 meeting will be held at the Bill Heddles Recreation Center, 530 Gunnison River Drive, Delta, CO 81416.
Collin Ewing, Dominguez-Escalante NCA Advisory Council Designated Federal Official, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Phone: (970) 244–3049. Email:
The 10-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the RMP process for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.
Topics of discussion during the meetings may include presentations from BLM staff on management actions contained in the RMP, particularly public comments on alternatives in the Draft RMP.
These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Time will be allocated at the middle and end of each meeting to hear public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited at the discretion of the chair.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 5, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile and portable electronic devices incorporating haptics (including smartphones and laptops) and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–5, 9–12, and 14–17 of the '507 patent; claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18, 25–27, and 29 of the '488 patent; claims 1 and 2 of the '260 patent; and claims 1, 7–10, and 12 of the '710 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR § 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio Robles, San Jose, CA 95134.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge is authorized to consolidate Inv. No. 337–TA–990 and this investigation if he deems it appropriate.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR §§ 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 4, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR; Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Inocybe Technologies Inc., Gatineau, Quebec City, CANADA; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Bantian,
The general area of fd.io's planned activity are to: (a) Drive the evolution of IO services (IO, processing, and management agents for networking, storage, and other types of IO) through a neutral community delivering open source software that supports deployment models including cloud, NFV, container, bare metal networking, storage, and other types of IO, in order to create a high performance, modular, and extensible open source platform fostering innovation in IO services (“the Platform”); (b) host a collection of projects that form a cohesive code base for open community based development, enhanced component compatibility and interoperability, greater choice and flexibility for data plane developers, and an open environment for IO services development and technology adoption; (c) support and maintain the strategic framework of the Platform through the technologies made available by the organization to make the Platform a success; (d) support and maintain policies set by the Board of Directors of the Joint Venture; (e) promote such Platform worldwide; (f) create and maintain programs regarding the use of Joint Venture trademarks; and (g) undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above.
Notice is hereby given that, on April 27, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and FlawPRO–JIP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 17, 2011, FlawPRO–JIP filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2012. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 11, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 12, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, AIST, Tokyo, JAPAN; ARM, Cambridge, MA; Berkeley Wireless Research Center, Berkley, CA; Blackcomb Design Automation, Inc. Vancouver, CANADA; IMEC, Heverlee, BELGIUM, Qorvo, Richardson, TX, Sage Design Automation, Santa Clara, CA; SiConTech, Inc., Austin, TX; STARC, Tokohama, JAPAN; Tyndall National Institute, Cork City, IRELAND; United Microelectronics Corporation, Hsinchu City, TAIWAN; Altera, San Jose, CA; Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA; and Avago Technologies, Ltd., San Jose, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Si2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 30, 1988, Si2 filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 28, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AllSeen Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 29, 2014, AllSeen Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 23, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 4, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Palo Alto, CA; Griffith University, Nathan, AUSTRALIA; Cisco Systems Inc., San Jose, CA; Teradyne, Inc., North Reading, MA; and Speedline, Franklin, MA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and iNEMI intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 6, 1996, iNEMI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 23, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 25, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, the following members have changed their names: PT Affia Andal Jasa Bismatamma (RSM AAJ ASSOCIATES) to PT RSM Indonesia Konsultan (RSM Indonesia), Jakarta, INDONESIA; NTS New Technology Systems GmbH to NTS Retail, Wilhering, AUSTRIA; AS Eesti Telekom to Telia Eesti AS, Tallinn, ESTONIA; Fornax Informatika to Fornax ICT Kft., Budapest, HUNGARY; Prodapt to Prodapt North America, Inc., Tualatin, OR; Knowesis Technology to Knowesis Pte Ltd, Singapore, SINGAPORE; and Citizen Telecom Services Company L.L.C. d/b/a Frontier Communications to Citizen Telecom Services Company L.L.C., Rochester, NY.
In addition, the following members have withdrawn as parties to this venture: AetherPal, South Plainfield, NJ; Almadar Aljadid, Tripoli, LIBYA; Applied Network Solutions, Inc., Columbia, MD; ARTIN Solutions, Bratislava, SLOVAKIA; BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Bank of America, New York, NY; beCloud, Minsk, BELARUS; Bobbil, Cork, IRELAND; BrandedIPTV, Hong Kong, HONG–KONG CHINA; Bright Computing BV, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Broadband Infraco (SOC) Ltd, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; BTC Networks, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; Business-intelligence of Oriental Nations Corporation Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Calix, Inc., Petaluma, CA; Cignium Technologies, Fort Lee, NJ; Cleartech, Barueri, BRAZIL; Ernst & Young, S.A. Costa Rica, San José, COSTA RICA; Eyelbe Ltd., Malmesbury, UNITED KINGDOM; Factdelta, Swansea, UNITED KINGDOM; GENBAND, Frisco, TX; i2i Bilisim Ve Teknoloji Danismanlik Tic Ltd., Kocaeli, TURKEY; ICCE Systems, Cary, NC; iiNet Limited, Subiaco, AUSTRALIA; InfoCumulus, Zagreb, CROATIA; Infopact Netwerkdiensten B.V., Hoogvliet, NETHERLANDS; Innovise ESM Ltd., Slough, UNITED KINGDOM; Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ICE, San Jose, COSTA RICA; Iprotel Limited, Reading, UNITED KINGDOM; Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, CA; Kwezi Software Solutions, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; Maksen Consulting, S.A., Lisbon, PORTUGAL; metaWEAVE, Centurion, SOUTH AFRICA; Mformation Software Technologies, Edison, NJ; Mobius Wireless Solutions Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; moreCom AS, Halden, NORWAY; Mozambique Cellular SARL (mcel), Maputo, MOZAMBIQUE; Neotel (Proprietary) Ltd., Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; NETvisor, Budapest, HUNGARY; Neural Technologies, Petersfield, UNITED KINGDOM; Neurocom SA, Athens, GREECE; NISCERT Corporation, Toronto, CANADA; N-Pulse GmbH, Heppenheim, GERMANY; Ogilvy, London, UNITED KINGDOM; one2tribe Sp. z o.o., Michalowice, POLAND; Onesto Services Oy, Jyvaskyla, FINLAND; Openet, Dublin, IRELAND; ParStream, Redwood City, CA; Ranck Consulting, Chevy Chase, MD; Simply Execute, Uerikon, SWITZERLAND; Softera Oy, Helsinki, FINLAND; Svarog Technology Group Inc., Half Moon Bay, CA; Tarantula, Slough, UNITED KINGDOM; TE Data, Dokki, EGYPT; Telecom Egypt, Giza, EGYPT; Telefonica Global Technology SA, Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA; Vertek Corporation, Colchester, VT; Visa, San Francisco, CA; Vox Telecom, Waverley, SOUTH AFRICA; and Worldstream Systems & Services, Ebene Cybercity, MAURITIUS.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 29, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, 3A Media Co. Ltd., Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Apollo Electronics Group Limited, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, HONG KONG–CHINA; Bestdisc Technology Corporation, Kee-Lung, TAIWAN; CMC Magnetics Corporation, Taipei, TAIWAN; CSR Technology, Inc., Sunnyville, CA; digiCon AG, Kornwestheim, GERMANY; Fuhrmeister Electronics Co., Ltd., Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications, Dongguan, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Hitachi High-Technologies Taiwan Corporation, Taipei, TAIWAN; Malata Group (HK) Limited, North Point, Hong Kong, HONG KONG–CHINA; Nagravision SA., Cheseau-sur-Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; Quatius Limited TST East, Hong Kong, HONG KONG–CHINA; Shanghai United Optical Disc Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Starlight Video Limited, Hong Kong, HONG KONG–CHINA; Tamul Multimedia Co., Ltd., AnYang-City, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; The Video Duplicating Co. Ltd., Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM; Yu Cha (Hong Kong) Electronics, Co., Ltd., Tsuen Wan N.T., Hong Kong, HONG KONG–CHINA; and Zhong Shan City Litai Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd., Zhongshan City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 21, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 26, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Node.js Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 17, 2015, Node.js Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 10, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 28, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on
February 10, 2016. A notice was published in the
Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as Amended,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 11, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as Amended information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 2520.102–2, 2520.102–3, 2520.104b–2, and 2520.104b3 that provide guidance on the content, frequency, and manner of certain disclosures the ERISA requires an employee benefit plan subject to the Act periodically to furnish plan participants and certain specified plan beneficiaries. A benefit plan uses summary plan descriptions, material modifications summaries, and material reductions summaries to make the disclosures. ERISA sections 102(b), 104(b)(1), and 109(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 225 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30–.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 225 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016–151 and CP2016–191 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 225 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016–151 and CP2016–191 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie R. Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 224 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30–.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 224 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016–150 and CP2016–190 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 224 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016–150 and CP2016–190 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie R. Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 3, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 3, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer-matching program that expires on July 1, 2016.
This matching program will become effective July 19, 2016. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met, with an expiration date of January 1, 2019.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the RRB is issuing public notice of its renewal of an ongoing computer-matching program with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The purpose of this notice is to advise individuals applying for or receiving benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of the use made by RRB of this information obtained from OPM by means of a computer match.
We will file a report of this computer-matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092.
Mr. Timothy Grant, Chief Privacy Officer, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092, telephone 312–751–4869 or email at
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, (Pub. L. 100–503), amended by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a) as amended, requires a Federal agency participating in a computer matching program to publish a notice in the
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records contained in a Privacy Act 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 agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments. The last published notice for this matching program was November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70971).
We have taken appropriate action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
OPM and RRB.
The purpose of the match is to enable the RRB to (1) identify affected RRB annuitants who are in receipt of a Federal public pension benefit but who have not reported receipt of this benefit to the RRB, and (2) receive timely and accurate Federal public pension benefit information for affected RRB annuitants.
Sections 3(a)(1), 4(a)(1) and 4(f)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. 231b(a)(1), 231c(a)(1) and 231c(f)(1) require that the RRB reduce the Railroad Retirement benefits of certain beneficiaries entitled to Railroad Retirement employee and/or spouse/widow benefits who are also entitled to a government pension based on their own non-covered earnings. We call this reduction a Public Service Pension (PSP) offset.
Section 224 of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 424a, provides for the reduction of disability benefits when the disabled worker is also entitled to a public disability benefit (PDB). We call this a PDB offset. A civil service disability benefit is considered a PDB. Section 224(h)(1) requires any Federal agency to provide RRB with
Individuals receiving Federal public pensions or RRB annuities.
OPM will provide the RRB once a year via secure electronic file transfer, data extracted from its annuity and survivor master file of its Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records. Normally on December of each year, OPM transmits to us approximately 2.5 million electronic records for matching. The records contain these data elements: Name, Social Security number, date of birth, civil service claim number, first potential month and year of eligibility for civil service benefits, first month, day, year of entitlement to civil service benefits, amount of current gross civil service benefits, and effective date (month, day, year) of civil service amount, and where applicable, civil service disability indicator, civil service FICA covered month indicator, and civil service total service months. The RRB will match the Social Security number, name, and date of birth contained in the OPM file against approximately the 1.2 million records in our files. For records that match, the RRB will extract the civil service payment information.
The Privacy Act System of Records designation is OPM/Central-1, (Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records), Published in the
By authority of the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to offer a Technical Support Request Fee to both Members and Non-Members.
The Exchange has an infrastructure comprised of low latency and ultra-low latency proximity solutions in several offsite data center locales offering universal access to all Exchange services via a single common connection across a variety of high speed network interfaces.
The Exchange offers connectivity in and between its data center facilities and supports direct attachment of all network equipment or direct attached host systems of both Member and Non-Member users of the Exchange. Member and Non-Member users of the Exchange are strongly encouraged to establish connectivity to at least two data centers to minimize the possibility of service disruption.
The Exchange proposes to add new Section (5)(f) to the Fee Schedule to establish a Member and Non-Member Technical Support Request Fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge Members and Non-Members an hourly fee in the event that such Member or Non-Member requests the Exchange to use the Exchange's on-site data center personnel to provide technical support at any of the Exchange's data centers. The Exchange proposes to assess Members and Non-Members that request MIAX technical support at any of the MIAX data centers a fee of $200 per hour for such technical support.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make the Exchange's on-site data center personnel available, for a fee, to Members and Non-Members when assisting with troubleshooting that requires a physical on-site presence.
The proposed Technical Support Request fee is scheduled to become effective June 1, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed new service is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Additionally, Members and Non-Members are not required to use the service but instead it is offered as a convenience to all Members and Non-Members. The proposed fee is reasonably designed because it will permit both Members and Non-Members to request the use of the Exchange's on-site data center personnel as technical support and as a convenience that is equally available to them.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed enhancement of services by the Exchange provided to its Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. In fact, MIAX's proposed technical support services at a Member or Non-Member's request will benefit all who use such services. As stated above, other exchanges charge for similar services at their data centers.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because the hourly rate is competitive with the rates offered by other exchanges for similar services.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 19, 2016, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC” or the “Corporation”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR–FICC–2016–001 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FICC seeks the Commission's approval to amend the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook
The GCF Repo service allows dealer members of FICC's Government Services Division to trade general collateral finance repos (“GCF Repos”)
Because FICC's GCF Repo service operates as a tri-party mechanism, FICC states that it was asked to alter the service to align it with the recommendations of the Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Task Force (“TPR”).
In proposed rule change SR–FICC–2016–001, FICC seeks the Commission's approval to permanently adopt the GSD Rules associated with the 2015 Pilot Program, which expires on June 22, 2016. In addition, FICC also seeks to add a clarification to the GSD Rules to reflect the net-of-net settlement process in the GCF Repo service. According to FICC, the net-of-net settlement clarification is also a result of Tri-Party Reform and reflects current practice at the GSD. FICC seeks to permanently adopt these changes rather than continually file annual extensions of the pilot program. The rule changes associated with the pilot have been in place since 2011 with certain additional modifications made in 2012, and FICC's members are accustomed to them. FICC states that this is also the case regarding the net-of-net settlement changes, which came into effect when the clearing banks implemented this process in 2014 and 2015. According to FICC, changes to the GSD Rules regarding the net-of-net settlement process require no operational changes on the part of FICC. However, FICC seeks to update the GSD Rules in an effort to ensure that the GSD Rules reflect the current net-of-net settlement process. According to FICC, any future changes that arise as a result of Tri-Party Reform will constitute stand-alone rule changes, and are not expected to affect the rule changes covered in this present filing. Finally, in addition to the above, FICC seeks to amend the GSD Rules to include non-substantive, technical changes for clarity.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
The proposal also eliminates obsolete language from the GSD Rules by codifying the net-of-net settlement process in the GSD Rules, and makes non-substantive clarifying corrections to the GSD Rules. Accordingly, the changes related to the net-of-net settlement process and the clarifying changes to the GSD Rules should provide for a more well-founded and transparent legal framework for FICC's activities, consistent with Act Rule 17Ad–22(d)(1).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly those set forth in Section 17A,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares:
The Shares will be offered by Virtus ETF Trust II (“Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, under normal circumstances,
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be actively-managed through the selection, at any given time, of approximately 80–100 common stocks from the Index based on quantitative and qualitative factors, including an assessment of the following characteristics: Cash flow return on invested capital; earnings quality and momentum; operational quality; corporate governance policies; and capital stewardship. The Fund may invest in such Index components by directly purchasing shares of common stock or investing in American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”)
Although the Fund will focus on investment in securities in the Index as described above, the Fund may also invest in common stocks of other Japanese companies with characteristics similar to those listed on the Index, as determined by the Sub-Adviser. With respect to such common stocks, the Fund will only invest in securities that are listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange
Positions may be reduced or removed when the Sub-Adviser determines that a security has become overweighted within the Fund's portfolio, that the security's prospects have adversely changed, that the Fund should raise funds for new or other investments or that there are more attractive opportunities.
While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its assets in common stock of Japanese companies listed in the Index, common stock of certain other Japanese companies and ADRs, as described above, the Fund will invest its remaining assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may invest in securities index futures contracts and foreign currency futures contracts.
The Fund may also invest in forward contracts and non-deliverable forward (“NDF”) contracts on the foreign currency spot market.
The Fund may invest in when-issued and forward commitment securities, which means delivery and payment take place a number of days after the date of the commitment to purchase, if the Fund holds sufficient liquid assets to meet the purchase price.
The Fund may invest in the following equity securities (other than non-exchange traded investment company securities): Common stocks traded on U.S. or Japanese securities exchanges (other than the Tokyo Stock Exchange); common stocks traded on the over-the-counter market; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded preferred stocks; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded convertible preferred stocks; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded convertible bonds; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded warrants; and U.S. and foreign exchange-traded rights. The Fund will not invest in ADRs on any of these equity securities.
In addition, the Fund may invest in, to the extent permitted by Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder,
The Fund may invest in Currency Trust Shares.
The Fund may invest in real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) traded on U.S. exchanges and Japanese exchanges.
The Fund may enter into short sales of securities. The Fund may also enter into short sales “against the box,”
The Fund may invest in the following money market instruments: U.S. Government obligations; corporate debt obligations
The Fund may invest assets in shares of money market funds.
The Fund may, from time to time, take temporary defensive positions that are inconsistent with its principal investment strategies in an attempt to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. In such circumstances, the Fund may also hold up to 100% of its portfolio in cash and cash equivalent positions.
The Fund intends to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a “regulated investment company” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets, which are investments that cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the prices at which they are valued. Under the supervision of the Board of Trustees of the Trust (“Board”), the Fund will determine the liquidity of the Fund's investments, which will be monitored by the Board pursuant to reports. If through a change in values, net assets or other circumstances, the Fund were in a position where more than 15% of its net assets were invested in illiquid assets, it would seek to take appropriate steps to protect liquidity.
Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. That is, while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
According to the Registration Statement, a Share's net asset value (“NAV”) will be determined as of the close of the regular trading session on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (normally at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”)) on each day that the NYSE is open for trading. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar will be converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.
The NAV of the Shares for the Fund is equal to the Fund's total assets minus the Fund's total liabilities divided by the total number of Shares outstanding. Interest and investment income on the Fund's assets accrue daily and are included in the Fund's total assets. Expenses and fees (including investment advisory, management, administration and distribution fees, if any) accrue daily and are included in the Fund's total liabilities. The NAV that is published is rounded to the nearest cent; however, for purposes of
The pricing and valuation of portfolio securities is determined in good faith in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the direction of, the Board. In determining the value of the Fund's assets, equity securities (other than non-exchange traded investment company securities), including shares of preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants, rights, ETFs, REITs, Currency Trust Shares and sponsored and unsponsored ADRs, generally will be valued at market value using quotations from the primary market on which they are traded. The Fund normally will use third party pricing services to obtain market quotations.
Money market instruments and cash equivalents will be valued on the basis of broker quotes or valuations provided by a third party pricing service, which in determining value utilizes information regarding recent sales, market transactions in comparable securities, quotations from dealers and various relationships between securities.
Futures contracts will generally be valued at the settlement price of the relevant exchange.
Investments in other open end investment companies (other than ETFs) that are registered under the 1940 Act, including money market funds, will be valued based upon the NAVs reported by such registered open end investment companies. The prospectuses for these companies explain the circumstances under which they will use fair value pricing and the effects of using fair value pricing.
NDFs and foreign forward currency contracts will be valued intraday using market quotes, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by a third party market data provider.
Securities and assets for which market quotations are not readily available or which cannot be accurately valued using the Fund's normal pricing procedures will be valued by the Trust's Fair Value Pricing Committee at fair value as determined in good faith under policies approved by the Board. Fair value pricing may be used, for example, in situations where (i) portfolio securities, such as securities with small capitalizations, are so thinly traded that there have been no transactions for that security over an extended period of time; (ii) an event occurs after the close of the exchange on which a portfolio security is principally traded that is likely to change the value of the portfolio security prior to the Fund's NAV calculation; (iii) the exchange on which the portfolio security is principally traded closes early; or (iv) trading of the particular portfolio security is halted during the day and does not resume prior to the Fund's NAV calculation. In addition, the Trust may fair value foreign equity portfolio securities each day the Trust calculates the Fund's NAV. Pursuant to policies adopted by the Board, the Adviser will consult with Bank of New York Mellon and the Sub-Adviser on a regular basis regarding the need for fair value pricing. The Fund's policies regarding fair value pricing are intended to result in a calculation of the Fund's NAV that fairly reflects portfolio security values as of the time of pricing. A portfolio security's “fair value” price may differ from the price next available for that portfolio security using the Fund's normal pricing procedures, and the fair value price may differ substantially from the price at which the security may ultimately be traded or sold. The Board will monitor and evaluate the Fund's use of fair value pricing, and will periodically review the results of any fair valuation under the Trust's policies.
According to the Registration Statement, Shares of the Fund will be “created” at NAV by certain large institutions only in block-size “Creation Units” of 50,000 Shares or multiples thereof. The size of a Creation Unit is subject to change. Only an “Authorized Participant” may create or redeem Creation Units directly with the Fund. Each Authorized Participant will enter into an authorized participant agreement with the Trust, Distributor and Transfer Agent (“Participant Agreement”). An Authorized Participant must either be (i) a broker-dealer or other participant (“Participating Party”) in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System (“Clearing Process”) of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) or a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission or (ii) a participant of the Depository Trust Company (“DTC Participant”).
A creation transaction generally takes place when an Authorized Participant deposits into the Fund a basket of equity securities included in the Fund's portfolio (“Deposit Securities”) and a specified cash payment (“Cash Component”).
Similarly, Shares can be redeemed only in Creation Units, generally in exchange for Deposit Securities and a Cash Component.
The prices at which creations and redemptions occur are based on the next calculation of NAV after a creation or redemption order is received in an acceptable form under the Participant Agreement.
The consideration for purchase of Creation Units generally will consist of an in-kind deposit of Deposit Securities for each Creation Unit constituting a substantial replication, or a representation, of the securities included in the Fund's portfolio and a Cash Component (calculated as described in this section below). Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, the function of the Cash Component will be to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities. The Cash Component would be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number (
The Fund, through NSCC, will make available on each day on which the NYSE is open for business (“Business Day”), immediately prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Fund. The Fund, through NSCC, will also make available on each Business Day the estimated Cash Component, effective through and including the previous Business Day, per outstanding Creation Unit of the Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, the identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for the Fund Deposit for the Fund may change as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Sub-Adviser with a view to the investment objective of the Fund. In addition, the Trust
All orders to create Creation Units, whether through the Clearing Process (through a Participating Party) or outside the Clearing Process (through a DTC Participant), must be received by the Distributor no later than 3:00 p.m., E.T., on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of the Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form on a Business Day and only through a Participating Party or DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement.
With respect to the Fund, the Trust, through NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.) on each Business Day, the Deposit Securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. Deposit Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Units.
The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will generally consist of Deposit Securities, as announced by the Trust on the Business Day of the request for a redemption received in proper form, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after receipt of the request, and the value of the Deposit Securities, less a redemption transaction fee. In the event that the Deposit Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential will be required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder.
If it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Deposit Securities, the Trust may in its sole discretion exercise its option to redeem such Shares in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash which the Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit.
The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to the Fund: (i) For any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (ii) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (iii) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Shares of the Fund or determination of the Shares' NAV is not reasonably practicable; or (iv) in such other circumstances as permitted by the Commission.
The Fund's Web site (
On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Adviser will disclose on the Fund's Web site the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2)) that will form the basis of the Fund's calculation of the NAV on that Business Day.
On a daily basis, the Adviser, on behalf of the Fund, will disclose on the Fund's Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, index, or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units; maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities (as applicable) required to be delivered in exchange for Fund Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via the NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
In order to provide additional information regarding the indicative value of Shares of the Fund, one or more market data vendors will disseminate every 15 seconds an updated Indicative Intra-Day Value (“IIV”) for the Fund as calculated by an information provider or market data vendor.
The Fund's IIV will be calculated based on the current market value of the Fund's portfolio holdings that will form the basis of the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day as disclosed on the Fund's Web site prior to the Business Day's commencement of trading.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N–CSR and Form N–Q, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–Q may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
In addition, the IIV,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the Exchange from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., E.T., in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in equity securities (other than non-exchange-traded investment company securities) shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA. Furthermore, not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in futures contracts shall consist of futures contracts whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (i) the description of the portfolio, (ii) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets or (iii) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Funds [sic] are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (i) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (iii) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (iv) how information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (v) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (vi) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., E.T., each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Adviser has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to its affiliated broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE. The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The ETFs held by the Fund will be traded on U.S. national securities exchanges and will be subject to the rules of such exchanges, as approved by the Commission. The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on its Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. These criteria are similar to certain “generic” listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B), which relate to criteria applicable to an index or portfolio of U.S. and non-U.S. stocks underlying a series of Investment Company Units to be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b–4(e) under the Act. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a CSSA. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an actively-managed exchange-traded product that will principally hold non-U.S. equity securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 April 18, 2016, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR–NSCC–2016–001 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as provided by NSCC:
Since the implementation of DTCC Limit Monitoring in 2014, NSCC has periodically met with a working group of its Members to discuss the functioning of the tool and to confirm it provides Members with effective post-trade surveillance as intended. In response to Member feedback provided during these discussions, NSCC has proposed to remove the 50% early warning alert for the reasons described below.
Additionally, NSCC has proposed to make technical revisions to Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring Procedure) primarily to revise the verb tense and add clarity regarding use of the tool.
Additionally, the proposed rule change will make certain technical changes that will clarify the Rule, primarily by updating the verb tense from future tense to present tense to reflect the present applicability of the Rule and by making certain other technical clarifications to language used in the Rule.
The proposed technical changes are not anticipated to have any effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.
As stated above, the proposed technical changes are not anticipated to have any effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to protect investors and the public interest.
As the proposed rule change pertains to technical changes to the Rules, the Commission finds the technical changes also consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A 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
Exchange Act Rule 14a–6(n) (17 CFR 240.14a–6(n)) requires any person that engages in a proxy solicitation subject to Exchange Act Rule 14a–2(b)(4) [(17 CFR 240.14a–2(b)(4))] to file a Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (“Notice”) [(17 CFR 240.14a–104)] with the Commission. The Notice provides information regarding ownership interest and any potential conflicts of interest to be included in statements submitted by or on behalf of a person engaging in the solicitation. The Notice takes approximately 0.25 hours per response and is filed by approximately 4 respondents for a total of one annual burden hour (0.25 hours per response × 4 response).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this 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 imposed by 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 unless it displays a currently valid 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
Form S–8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this 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 imposed by 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 unless it displays a currently valid 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 155 (17 CFR 230.155) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
We estimate that 50% of the 4 hours per response (2 hours per response) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 1,200 hours (2 hours per response × 600 responses).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this 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 imposed by 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 unless it displays a currently valid 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:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the “Rules”) in order to add a Rule which establishes: (i) The circumstances under which DTC would impose and release a restriction on Deposits of an Eligible Security (a “Deposit Chill”) or on book-entry services for an Eligible Security (a “Global Lock”); and (ii) the fair procedures for notice and an opportunity for the issuer of the Eligible Security (the “Issuer”) to challenge the Deposit Chill or Global Lock (each, a “Restriction”), as described below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposal would add new Rule 33 (Deposit Chills and Global Locks) to establish: (i) The circumstances under which DTC would impose and release a Deposit Chill or a Global Lock; and (ii) the fair procedures for notice and an opportunity for the Issuer to challenge the Restriction, as described below.
DTC is the nation's central securities depository, registered as a clearing agency under Section 17A of the Act.
DTC performs services and maintains Securities Accounts for its Participants, primarily banks and broker dealers, pursuant to its Rules and Procedures. Participants agree to be bound by the Rules and Procedures of DTC as a condition of their DTC membership.
The Commission has recognized that DTC plays a “critical function” in the National Clearance and Settlement system.
Previously, upon detecting suspiciously large deposits of a thinly traded Eligible Security, DTC imposed or proposed to impose a Deposit Chill as a measure to maintain the status quo while, pursuant to its Operational Arrangements,
With respect to Global Locks, DTC previously imposed a Global Lock on an Eligible Security when a governmental or regulatory authority commenced a proceeding or action alleging violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to such Eligible Security. A Global Lock could be released when the underlying enforcement action was withdrawn, dismissed on the merits with prejudice, or otherwise resolved in a final, non-appealable judgment in favor of the defendants allegedly responsible for the violations of federal securities laws. However, many enforcement actions are only resolved after several years
The above describes, in part, the proposed procedures filed by DTC on December 5, 2013,
As a result of DTC's experiences following the
Additionally, Global Locks were typically being imposed on the basis of a Commission enforcement action alleging securities law violations that had occurred in the past, and so could not affect the violative behavior (unless the alleged securities law violations were ongoing). In fact, it is DTC's understanding that, by the time of an enforcement action, the wrongdoers had long since transferred the subject securities. In addition, although a Global Lock bars book-entry settlements within DTC, it does not affect the trading of the issue, which occurs outside of DTC.
With this proposal, DTC would establish the basis for the imposition of Deposit Chills and Global Locks, premised on direct current judicial or regulatory intervention or the threat of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants. DTC believes that the proposed rule change would provide a basis for imposing and releasing Restrictions that is consistent with its obligations under applicable law.
Under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, if FINRA or the Commission halts or suspends trading of an Eligible Security, DTC would impose a Global Lock. Similarly, under subsection (c) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, DTC would impose a Restriction if ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consistent with its mandate “to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,”
Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1 of the proposed Rule, DTC recognizes that FINRA and the Commission issue trading halts and suspensions for numerous reasons, and so there may be certain limited circumstances where a Global Lock
Finally, under subsection (d) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, DTC would impose a Restriction when it becomes aware of a need for immediate action to avert an imminent harm, injury, or other such material adverse consequence to DTC or its Participants that could arise from further Deposits of, or continued book-entry services with respect to, an Eligible Security. While it is impossible to anticipate all possible scenarios that may give rise to the need for action by DTC under this subsection (d) to avoid imminent harm, DTC does not anticipate that it would impose Restrictions pursuant to this formulation frequently. Some examples where this provision may be invoked include, but are not limited to, if DTC becomes aware that marketplace actors were about to deposit Securities at DTC in connection with an ongoing corporate hijacking, market manipulation, or in violation of other applicable laws; if an Issuer or its agent provides DTC with plausible information that Security certificates were stolen and were about to be deposited; or if an Issuer notifies DTC that shares of a Security had just been issued erroneously upon a conversion of previously satisfied notes.
The concept of taking immediate action to avoid imminent harm to DTC or its Participants was recognized in the Commission's opinion in
If DTC believes that circumstances exist that justify imposing a suspension of services with respect to an issuer's securities in advance of being able to provide the issuer with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the suspension, it may do so. However, in such circumstances, these processes should balance the identifiable need for emergency action with the issuer's right to fair procedures under the Exchange Act. Under such procedures, DTC would be authorized to act to avert an imminent harm, but it could not maintain such a suspension indefinitely without providing expedited fair process to the affected issuer.
As part of DTC's process for imposing Restrictions premised on direct court or regulatory agency intervention or the prospect of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants, the proposed rule change provides corresponding criteria for releasing such Restrictions.
As an initial matter, pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would release a Restriction when DTC reasonably determines that its imposition of the Restriction was based on a clerical mistake.
In the case of a Global Lock imposed pursuant to subsections (a) or (b) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (FINRA trading halt or Commission trading suspension), under the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Global Lock when the halt or suspension of trading of the Eligible Security has been lifted. In the case of a Restriction imposed pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (order from a court of competent jurisdiction), under the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Restriction when a court of competent jurisdiction orders DTC to release the Restriction. Since trading would no longer be prohibited by FINRA, the Commission, or court order, respectively, there should not be any settlement restrictions, other than those otherwise provided in the Rules.
Finally, in the case of a Restriction imposed pursuant to subsection (d) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants), pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Restriction when it reasonably determines that the release of the Restriction would not pose a threat of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants, obviating the original basis for the Restriction.
It is impossible to anticipate all possible scenarios that may give rise to a release of a Restriction under this basis. However, DTC anticipates that it would release such Restriction in a number of circumstances, including without limitation:
• When DTC determines that the perceived harm has passed or is significantly remote;
• when the basis for the Restriction no longer exists. For example, where DTC imposed a Deposit Chill on the basis of plausible information that certificates were stolen and about to be deposited, and DTC subsequently receives plausible information that the certificates have been recovered and will not be deposited, or where DTC imposed a Deposit Chill based on erroneously issued shares, and subsequently receives copies of a “Stop transfer”
• when an Eligible Security had been previously Globally Locked based on a Commission enforcement action but there is no indication that illegally distributed Securities are about to be deposited.
DTC has developed the procedures in the proposed rule change to give the Issuer a timely notice of the Restriction, provide the Issuer an opportunity to submit a written challenge to the Restriction, provide a review and written determination by an independent officer, and maintain a complete record of the proceeding, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would send written notice (“Restriction Notice”) to the Issuer's last known business address and to the last known business address of the Issuer's transfer agent, if any, on record with DTC. The Restriction Notice would be sent within three Business Days of imposition of a Restriction and would set forth: (i) The basis for the Restriction; (ii) the date the Restriction was imposed; (iii) that the Issuer may submit a written response to DTC detailing the basis for release of the Restriction under proposed Rule 33 (“the Restriction Response”); and (iv) that the Restriction Response must be received by DTC within twenty Business Days of delivery of the Restriction Notice.
Once the Restriction Response is received by DTC, the proposed rule change provides that it would be reviewed by a DTC officer who did not have responsibility for the imposition of the Restriction. DTC may request additional information from the Issuer. After the officer's review is completed, DTC would provide a written decision (a “Restriction Decision”) to the Issuer.
If the Issuer submits a Supplement, the officer would provide a supplement decision (a “Supplement Decision”) within ten Business Days after the Supplement was delivered. The Restriction Notice, the Restriction Response, the Restriction Decision, the Supplement, the Supplement Decision, and any other documents submitted in connection with these procedures would constitute the record for purposes of any appeal to the Commission.
The proposed rule change would not affect DTC's ability (A) to lift or modify a Restriction; (B) to operationally restrict book-entry services, Deposits or other services in the ordinary course of business, as such restrictions do not constitute Deposit Chills or Global Locks for purposes of proposed Rule 33; (C) to communicate with the Issuer or its transfer agent or representative, if any, provided that substantive communications are memorialized in writing to be included in the record for purposes of any appeal to the Commission; or (D) to send out a Restriction Notice prior to the imposition of a Restriction.
DTC believes that these procedures comport with Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act, which requires that a registered clearing agency that denies or limits access to the agency's services to a “person,” it must “provide a fair procedure.”
Section 17A of the Act does not specify the nature of the fair procedures DTC must provide to “persons,” including issuers. In
Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(5)(B) states that, when a registered clearing agency determines that “a person shall be . . . prohibited or limited with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency, the clearing agency shall notify such person of, and give him an opportunity to be heard upon, the specific grounds for . . . prohibition or limitation under consideration and keep a record.”
As stated in
In the Commission's more recent opinion in
DTC believes that the procedures in proposed Rule 33 for giving notice of the Restriction to the Issuer with an opportunity to be heard are consistent with the fair procedures upheld by the Commission in
DTC will announce the effective date via Important Notice upon the Commission's approval of the proposed rule change.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act, requires,
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on, or impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received with respect to this filing. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change DTC will forward such comments to the Commission.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on July 12, 2016, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U. S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647–9683.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) because the Line is not a through route, no overhead traffic has operated, and, therefore, none needs to be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending either with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 9, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
FRA is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the potential application of 23 CFR part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, to railroad projects. Part 771 currently prescribes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FRA must receive written comments on this notice on or before July 11, 2016. FRA will consider comments received after this date to the extent practicable.
•
•
•
•
Mr. Michael Johnsen, Environmental and Corridor Planning Division, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by telephone at 202–493–1310 or Mr. Chris Van Nostrand, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by telephone at 202–493–6058.
On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act into law (Pub. L. 114–94). Section 11503 of the FAST Act requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), among other things, to apply, to the greatest extent feasible, the project development procedures described in 23 U.S.C. 139 (Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking) to railroad projects requiring the Secretary's approval under NEPA. The Secretary must incorporate into FRA regulations and procedures for railroad projects aspects of the 23 U.S.C. 139 project development procedures, or portions thereof, which increase the efficiency of the review of railroad projects consistent with section 11503. In addition, section 11503 requires the Secretary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose new and existing categorical exclusions for railroad projects the Secretary must approve under NEPA.
In light of section 11503's requirements, FRA is evaluating whether to apply 23 CFR part 771 to railroad projects. Part 771 currently prescribes FHWA and FTA procedures for implementing NEPA, including 23 U.S.C. 139 requirements. In FRA's view, applying part 771 to railroad projects may be the most efficient way to comply with section 11503 and promote consistency in FTA, FHWA, and FRA environmental reviews. In addition, FRA would not need to develop entirely new NEPA regulations for railroad projects. FRA, in conjunction with FHWA and FTA, would engage in a rulemaking to revise part 771 to make it applicable to railroad projects before such an approach would become effective. FRA seeks input from interested parties, stakeholders, and the public on this proposal.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of public meeting.
NHTSA is announcing a public meeting to seek stakeholder feedback on a full-size 3-dimensional surrogate vehicle being developed to better support the evaluation of advanced crash avoidance technologies. NHTSA, Euro NCAP, Thatcham, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have been collaboratively working to develop this surrogate; however, confirmation that it appears as realistic to the sensors used in automotive safety systems requires feedback from industry experts.
NHTSA will hold the public meeting July 13–14, 2016, in East Liberty, OH. Each day the meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m., local time. Check-in will begin at 8:00 a.m. All attendees for the meeting are required to register by following the instructions under
Following the event, participants are requested to submit all written feedback and supporting information pertaining to their 3D surrogate vehicle measurements no later than August 5, 2016.
The meeting will be held on the test track at the Transportation Research Center, Inc., 10820 SR 347, East Liberty, OH 43319.
•
•
•
•
Attendees should register at
To date, multiple iterative efforts have been made to produce a 3D surrogate vehicle that not only emulates a passenger car from any approach angle, but one that can be safely and repeatedly struck by an actual light or heavy vehicle without harm. In Europe, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers were presented with two opportunities to measure the appearance of multiple surrogate designs during similar test events hosted by Thatcham in the UK. The feedback received from these companies has been invaluable, and has helped refine the surrogate to its current characteristics.
On July 13–14, 2016, NHTSA will be hosting a U.S.-based test event featuring the most recent iteration of the collaboratively-developed 3D surrogate vehicle and up to two robotic platforms (the surrogate vehicle is secured to a shallow self-propelled robotic platform to facilitate accurate longitudinal and lateral movement during testing). During this two-day meeting, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers will have an opportunity to measure the appearance of the 3D surrogate vehicle from multiple approach angles using vehicle-based sensors (
Feedback from the participants will be beneficial in finalizing the design of the surrogate. Meeting participants will have the opportunity to provide results from the measurements collected with their respective test equipment, and to provide specific recommendations about how the surrogate vehicle's appearance, to any sensor, could be improved. When providing these recommendations, participants are asked to consider the balance between realism and practicality. While it is very important the surrogate look as realistic as possible, it must also remain strikeable from any approach angle, over a broad range of impact speeds, without affecting the safety of those using it or harming the vehicle being evaluated.
Discussions pertaining to the 3D surrogate vehicle will be focused on what features, if any, will need to be adjusted to allow it to appear realistic to automotive sensing systems. NHTSA does not intend to discuss how it may use 3D surrogate vehicles beyond inclusion is its research programs.
Surrogate vehicle feedback forms will be available on-site, and will request information about, but not be limited to, the following topics:
1. Are the radar return characteristics of the surrogate, including radar cross section (RCS), adequately realistic from each approach angle, depth, and height relative to the ground?
2. Are the visual characteristics, including the overall shape, reflectivity, contrasting features, of the surrogate adequately realistic?
3. Is the surrogate able to adequately support lidar-based safety systems?
4. Is the presence of the robotic platform beneath the surrogate apparent to the automotive sensing system (radar, visual, etc.)? If so, what effect will the platform's presence expected to have on safety system performance?
5. How consistent is the classification of the surrogate (
6. From an industry perspective, what is the preferred rank order of the following: absolute surrogate vehicle realism, strikeablity/durability, or ease of reassembly?
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) (PRA). Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202–622–2410.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained for five years.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice.
In view of upcoming vacancies in the voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to succeed such a voting member to apply. The voting memberships covered by this notice are two circuit memberships (for the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit) and two at-large memberships. Application materials should be received by the Commission not later than August 8, 2016. An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the addresses section below.
Application materials for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should be received not later than August 8, 2016.
An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502–4500,
The Practitioners Advisory Group of the United States Sentencing Commission is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the advisory group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on the Commission's activities and work, including proposed priorities and amendments; (3) to disseminate to defense attorneys, and to other professionals in the defense community, information regarding federal sentencing issues; and (4) to perform other related functions as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of not more than 17 voting members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Of those 17 voting members, one shall be Chair, one shall be Vice Chair, 12 shall be circuit members (one for each federal judicial circuit other than the Federal Circuit), and three shall be at-large members.
To be eligible to serve as a voting member, an individual must be an attorney who (1) devotes a substantial portion of his or her professional work to advocating the interests of privately-represented individuals, or of individuals represented by private practitioners through appointment under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, within the federal criminal justice system; (2) has significant experience with federal sentencing or post-conviction issues related to criminal sentences; and (3) is in good standing of the highest court of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which he or she is admitted to practice. Additionally, to be eligible to serve as a circuit member, the individual's primary place of business or a substantial portion of his or her practice must be in the circuit concerned. Each voting member is appointed by the Commission.
The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to a voting membership covered by this notice (
28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o), (p), § 995; USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.4.
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice; request for public comment.
As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the United States Sentencing Commission is seeking comment on possible priority policy issues for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017.
Public comment should be received by the Commission on or before July 25, 2016.
Comments should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502–4500,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(g), the Commission intends to consider the issue of reducing costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, to the extent it is relevant to any identified priority.
The Commission provides this notice to identify tentative priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017. The Commission recognizes, however, that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of May 1, 2017. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 2017.
As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following tentative priorities:
(1) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on statutory mandatory minimum penalties to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's 2011 report to Congress, titled
(2) Continuation of its multi-year examination of the overall structure of the guidelines post-
(3) Continuation of its study of approaches to encourage use of alternatives to incarceration, including possible consideration of amending the Sentencing Table in Chapter 5, Part A to consolidate and/or expand Zones A, B, and C, and any other relevant provisions in the
(4) Continuation of its multi-year study of statutory and guideline definitions relating to the nature of a defendant's prior conviction (
(5) Continuation of its comprehensive, multi-year study of recidivism, including (A) examination of circumstances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism; (B) possible development of recommendations for using information obtained from such study to reduce costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, and promote effectiveness of reentry programs; and (C) consideration of any amendments to the
(6) Study of the findings and recommendations contained in the May 2016 Report issued by the Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group, and consideration of any amendments to the
(7) Study of the treatment of youthful offenders under the
(8) Study of the operation of Chapter Four, Part A of the
(9) Study of offenses involving 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (Methylone) and consideration of any amendments to the
(10) Implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114–74, and any other crime legislation enacted during the 114th or 115th Congress warranting a Commission response.
(11) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and
(12) Consideration of any miscellaneous guideline application issues coming to the Commission's
The Commission hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on these tentative priorities and on any other issues that interested persons believe the Commission should address during the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017. To the extent practicable, public comment should include the following: (1) A statement of the issue, including, where appropriate, the scope and manner of study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other matters relevant to a proposed priority; (2) citations to applicable sentencing guidelines, statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions; and (3) a direct and concise statement of why the Commission should make the issue a priority.
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
The Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions represents a key component of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735) and incorporated by reference in the President's Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the
In the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) agencies report regulatory actions upcoming in the next year. Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda for spring 2016, which contains the regulatory agendas for 57 Federal agencies, is available to the public at
The spring 2016 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482–7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The spring 2016 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 57 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.
The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated by reference in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Unified Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
The
The
The
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Unified Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major”
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Some agencies that participated in the fall 2015 edition of The Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for those entries that appeared in the Plan:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with Executive Order 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720–3257.
C. William Hench, Senior Cattle Health Specialist, Cattle Health Center, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B–3E20, Fort Collins, CO 80526,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas,
Various Secretary's Rules and Regulations (years of 1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1950, and 1963) and Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.15 provide direction for the use of NFS lands for mineral development activities associated with the exercise of reserved mineral rights. These existing rules for reserved minerals development activities also include requirements for protection of NFS resources.
Currently, there are no formal regulations governing the use of NFS lands for activities associated with the exercise of outstanding mineral rights underlying those lands. The Energy
The Forest Service initiated rulemaking for the use of NFS lands for development activities associated with both reserved and outstanding minerals rights with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's spring 2016 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Commerce hereby publishes its spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's spring 2016 regulatory agenda follows.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review”. This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive Order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD regulations initiated by DoD components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD regulations listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest and, therefore, are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on November 19, 2015, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the fall of 2016. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571–372–0485, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1600, or call 703–697–2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571–372–0489, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–9010, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571–372–6115, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 703–428–6173, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS–RDR–C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315–3860, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith, telephone 703–693–3644, or write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310–0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Noreen Hagerty-Ford, telephone 703–614–7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703–614–8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330–1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Departments of the Army and Navy. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies regulations that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD regulations, which are directly applicable under these statutes, will be identified in the agenda and their action status indicated. Generally, the regulatory status reports in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a
Although not a regulatory agency, DoD will continue to participate in regulatory initiatives designed to reduce economic costs and unnecessary burdens upon the public. Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563 recognizes the importance of maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch. DoD's retrospective review plan is intended to identify certain significant rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive and can be accessed at:
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of Federal regulatory and deregulatory actions. The agenda is issued under the authority of section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the regulatory actions we plan to take.
Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the agency contact listed for the regulations. Other questions or comments on this agenda should be directed to LaTanya Cannady, Program Specialist, or Hilary Malawer, General Counsel, Division of Regulatory Services, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Education, Room 6C128, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–2241; telephone: (202) 401–9676 (LaTanya Cannady) or (202) 401–6148 (Hilary Malawer). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, requires the Department of Education (ED) to publish, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602(a), requires ED to publish, in October and April of each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda.
The regulatory flexibility agenda may be combined with any other agenda that satisfies the statutory requirements (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). In compliance with the Executive order and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Secretary publishes this agenda.
For each set of regulations listed, the agenda provides the title of the document, the type of document, a citation to any rulemaking or other action taken since publication of the most recent agenda, and planned dates of future rulemaking. In addition, the agenda provides the following information:
• An abstract that includes a description of the problem to be addressed, any principal alternatives being considered, and potential costs and benefits of the action.
• An indication of whether the planned action is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
• A reference to where a reader can find the current regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
• A citation of legal authority.
• The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at ED from whom a reader can obtain additional information regarding the planned action.
In accordance with ED's Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan (78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013), ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, least burdensome way possible.
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on any of the items listed in this agenda that they believe are not consistent with the Principles for Regulating. Members of the public are also invited to comment on any uncompleted actions in this agenda that ED plans to review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) to determine their economic impact on small entities.
This publication does not impose any binding obligation on ED with regard to any specific item in the agenda. ED may elect not to pursue any of the regulatory actions listed here, and regulatory action in addition to the items listed is not precluded. Dates of future regulatory actions are subject to revision in subsequent agendas.
The entire Unified Agenda is published electronically and is available online at
Department of Energy.
Semi-annual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's Spring 2016 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (EO) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Wilma Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690–5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal Government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the rulemaking activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. The Agenda furthers several Departmental goals, including strengthening health care; advancing scientific knowledge and innovation; advancing the health, safety, and well-being of the American people; increasing efficiency, transparency, and accountability of HHS programs; and strengthening the nation's health and human services infrastructure and workforce.
HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory Web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Sarah Harding, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4–01–26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244,
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528–0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of current and projected rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on December 15, 2015, at 80 FR 77971.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel for Multi–Modal Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
Denise Daniels, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch–Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch–Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
Susan Prosnitz, Deputy Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Brad Tuttle, Attorney Advisor, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536,
Katherine H. Westerlund, Acting Unit Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Potomac Center North, STOP 5600, 500 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20536–5600,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In accordance with section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, HUD is publishing its agenda of regulations already issued or that are expected to be issued during the next several months. The agenda also includes rules currently in effect that are under review and describes those regulations that may affect small entities, as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with advance information about pending regulatory activities.
Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500; telephone number 202–708–3055. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 800–877–8339 (Federal Relay Service).
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735), as amended, requires each department or agency to prepare semiannually an agenda of: (1) Regulations that the department or agency has issued or expects to issue, and; (2) rules currently in effect that are under departmental or agency review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires each department or agency to publish semiannually a regulatory agenda of rules expected to be proposed or promulgated that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities,” meaning small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act permit incorporation of the agenda required by these two authorities with any other prescribed agenda.
HUD's regulatory agenda combines the information required by Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As in the past, HUD's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Department is subject to certain rulemaking requirements set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531
HUD has attempted to list in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently omitted, or may have arisen too late to be included in the published agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Also, where a date is provided for the next rulemaking action, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to act on or by the date shown.
In some cases, HUD has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that HUD will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows HUD to assess the subject matter further and determine whether rulemaking in that area is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate. If that determination is made, such rules will be included in a succeeding semiannual agenda.
In addition, for a few rules that have been published as proposed or interim rules and which, therefore, require further rulemaking, HUD has identified the timing of the next action stage as “undetermined.” These are rules that are still under review by HUD for which a determination and timing of the next action stage have not yet been made.
Since the purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the Department's future regulatory actions, HUD invites all interested members of the public to comment on the rules listed in the agenda.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Unified regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the unified agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between spring 2016 and spring 2017. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Direct all comments and inquiries to the appropriate agency contact. Direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202–208–5257.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Scott Covington, Refuge Energy Program Coordinator, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: NWRS, Falls Church, VA 22041–3808,
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its spring 2016 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514–8059.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Kathleen Franks, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S–2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693–5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
Bloodborne Pathogens (RIN 1218–AC34).
All of the other regulations implementing WIOA were published by the Departments of Labor and Education in separate NPRMs. The Departments have analyzed the comments received and are developing a final rule.
Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring,
The NPRM was published on September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56274). OSHA received over 1,700 comments from the public on the proposed rule, and over 200 stakeholders provided testimony during public hearings on the proposal. The agency is now reviewing and considering the evidence in the rulemaking record.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). Our regulations should be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They should not be issued without appropriate involvement of the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed. To view additional information about the Department's regulatory activities online, go to
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by OST.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. We have classified rules as significant in the Agenda if they are, essentially, very beneficial, controversial, or of substantial public interest under our Regulatory Policies and Procedures. All DOT significant rulemaking documents are subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided a rule is subject to its review under Executive Order 12866, we have also classified it as significant in the Agenda.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated February 19, 2016, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D. In response to Executive Order 13563 “Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules,” in 2011 we prepared a retrospective review plan providing more detail on the process we use to conduct reviews of existing rules, including changes in response to Executive Order 13563. Any updates related to our retrospective plan and review results can be found at
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the Internet at
(Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation Administration, substitute the following address: Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.)
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–7833.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2992.
FRA—Kathryn Gresham, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
FTA—Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–0944.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764–3200.
PHMSA—Karin Christian, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–4400.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–5157.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–4723.
All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, 1–800–647–5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to permit its use. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department has added other elements to its review plan. The Department has decided to improve its plan by adding special oversight processes within the Department, encouraging effective and timely reviews, including providing additional guidance on particular problems that warrant review, and expanding opportunities for public participation. These new actions are in addition to the other steps described in this appendix.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The FAA has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most DOT modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highway is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145 of title 23, expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda available on the Internet.
The semiannual agenda of the Department of the Treasury conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC).
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004–1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272–0040 (voice) or (202) 272–0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda and semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations in the semiannual regulatory agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda;
• Retrospective reviews of existing regulations; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA–2016–0203; EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0175; EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0126, to the
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda or retrospective review activity, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. Within the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
In 2016, EPA is also reviewing its
EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda also includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Within this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, the opportunity to suggest regulations that may be appropriate for retrospective review, and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish it in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker” refers to an online portal to EPA's priority rules and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. This portal is available at
“Retrospective Review Plan” is EPA's plan under Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 to periodically review existing regulations to determine whether any may be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in order to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. This Plan and subsequent progress updates are available at
“610 Review” is an action EPA is committed to reviewing within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition to meeting its mission goals and priorities, EPA reviews its existing regulations under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” and Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens.” These Executive Orders provide for periodic retrospective review of existing regulations and are intended to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the Agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments are provided in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To be most effective, comments should contain information and data that support your position and you also should explain why EPA should incorporate your suggestion in the rule or other type of action. You can be particularly helpful and persuasive if you provide examples to illustrate your concerns and offer specific alternatives.
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about public involvement in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to State implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to States; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA is initiating two 610 reviews at this time and completing one 610 review.
You can choose how to organize the agenda entries online by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
EPA posts monthly information of new rulemakings that the Agency's senior managers have decided to develop. This list is also distributed via email. You can find the current list, known as the Action Initiation List (AIL), at
The Regulatory Information Service Center and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have a Federal regulatory dashboard that allows users to view the Regulatory Agenda database (
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
This Web site also provides information about EPA's retrospective reviews of existing regulations and semiannual progress reports on those reviews.
Recognizing the importance of reducing unnecessary red tape, Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to develop a plan to periodically review its regulations to determine whether any should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13610 requires agencies to give priority to those initiatives that will produce significant monetary savings or reductions in paperwork burdens while protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, and puts particular emphasis on initiatives that would reduce unjustified regulatory burdens or simplify or harmonize regulatory requirements on small businesses.
In August 2011, EPA issued its
Consistent with the Executive Orders and with our 2011 Plan, EPA is again soliciting comments on regulations that might be appropriate for retrospective review. We are requesting comment on rules that were finalized more than 5 years ago and that have not already been identified for review under the 2011 Final Plan or subsequent updates to that Plan. In addition, we are specifically soliciting comments on the following questions:
• Which regulations could be updated to be less burdensome for small businesses and/or state and local governments while maintaining environmental protection?
• Which regulations, including economically significant rules, could be transitioned from paper to electronic reporting?
• How can the EPA reduce duplicative reporting requirements in existing regulations that may overlap with other federal requirements?
• How can the EPA streamline or consolidate reporting requirements to reduce burden, including reducing the frequency of reporting, while maintaining effective programs?
• Which regulations could be improved through the use of advance monitoring techniques to facilitate environmental protection?
• Are there changes that could be made to a regulation to better protect vulnerable populations?
• Which regulations (or a portion of a regulation) have achieved their original objective and become obsolete?
We request that commenters be as specific as possible, include any supporting data or other information, and provide a citation when referencing a specific regulation. In addition, in drafting comments, bear in mind that the EPA must uphold both its legal obligations under governing statutes and its mission to protect human health and the environment; and that the EPA's retrospective review will be tailored to reflect its resources, rulemaking schedule, and workload.
The EPA is accepting comments until July 11, 2016. Please send retrospective review comments to docket EPA–HQ–OA–2016–0203. Although the agency will not respond to individual comments, the EPA values and will give careful consideration to all input that it receives. Please see
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of
EPA established official public dockets for the new 610 Reviews. If you would like to provide feedback, submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0175 or EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0126, to the
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA Web site at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Mark Sendzik, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C304–03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
David Cozzie, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, E–143–05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Michelle Price, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Scott Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5305P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2015 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501–4755.
Once implemented, the new GSAR transactional data reporting clauses will enable GSA to provide Federal agencies with further market intelligence and expert guidance in procuring goods and services in each category of GSA acquisition vehicles. The new requirement will not affect the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FSS contract holders.
The proposed amendment to the GSAR will add an alternate version of the existing GSAR clause 552.238–74 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting (IFF) (Federal Supply Schedule) and a new GSAR clause 552.216–75 Sales Reporting and Fee Remittance. Under the FSS program, vendors that agree to the new transactional reporting requirement will have their contracts modified with an alternate version of clause 552.238–75 Price Reductions; the alternate version of clause 552.238–75 does not require the vendor to monitor and provide price reductions to the Government when the customer or category of customer upon which the contract was predicated receives a discount.
GSA will implement the new transactional data reporting requirements in phases, beginning with specific contract vehicles, including a few select Federal Supply Schedules, or Special Item Numbers that show the greatest potential to optimize transactional data via category management and reduced price variability. GSA will engage stakeholders throughout the phases of the implementation.
GSA is reviewing the public comments received and analyzing alternatives for collecting transactional data, including the potential publication of a final rule. This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in GSA's retrospective review (2016), available at:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358–0252.
OMB guidelines dated February 19, 2016, “Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA expects that this summary information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory activity. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
SBA provides this notice under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” which require each agency to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The Regulatory Agenda is a summary of all current and projected Agency rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last Regulatory Agenda. SBA's last Semiannual Regulatory Agenda was published on December 15, 2015, at 80 FR 78039. The Semiannual Agenda of the SBA conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to publish those regulatory actions that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
This rule proposes to make four changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program. The first would change the threshold for notification to SBA of changes in the contract or bond amount. Second, the change would require sureties to submit quarterly contract completion reports. Third, SBA proposes to increase the eligible contract limit for the Quick Bond Application and Agreement from $250,000 to $400,000. Finally, SBA proposes to increase the guarantee percentage in the Preferred Surety Bond program to reflect the statutory change made by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016. The guarantee percentage will increase from 70% to 80% or 90%, depending on contract size and socioeconomic factors currently in effect in the Prior Approval Program.
NOTE: The title for this rule has been changed since the rule was first reported in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013, from “Small Business Size Standards for Wholesale Trade” to “Small Business Size Standards: Employee Based Size Standards for Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade.” The title was changed to make it clear that the rule also addresses industries with employee based size standards in Retail Trade.
Please Note: The title for this rule has been changed since it was first announced in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013 to add the words or Retail Trade at the end of the previous title. This change makes it clear that industries in the retail trade with employee based size standards are also not addressed in the rule.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or via telephone at 202–501–4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418–5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
1. A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
2. A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
3. The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's spring 2016 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017. The next agenda will be published in fall 2016 and will update this agenda through fall 2017. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of March 25, 2016.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its spring 2016 agenda as part of the Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The CFPB's participation in the Unified Agenda is voluntary. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the public at the following Web site:
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities.
The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017.
The Bureau is working on a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in a wide variety of markets for consumer financial products and services.
For example, the Bureau is preparing to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking this spring concerning the use of agreements between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future disputes. The rulemaking follows on a report that the Bureau issued to Congress in March 2015, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as on preliminary results of arbitration research that were released by the Bureau in December 2013. In fall 2015, the Bureau began the rulemaking process by releasing an outline explaining that it was considering whether to limit arbitration agreements from being used to compel arbitration of consumer class actions and whether to require the reporting of certain information concerning consumer arbitrations to the Bureau to facilitate monitoring. The Bureau convened a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with small businesses that may be affected by the policy proposals under consideration. The Bureau has also gathered extensive feedback from other stakeholders in preparation for the rulemaking.
The Bureau also expects to release later this spring a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address consumer harms from practices related to payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar credit products, including failure to determine whether consumers have the ability to repay without default or reborrowing and certain payment collection practices. The Bureau convened a SBREFA panel in April 2015, along with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to meet with small lenders that may be affected by the rulemaking, and has gathered extensive feedback from other stakeholders in the last year to obtain feedback on the proposals. This rulemaking builds on Bureau research, including a white paper the Bureau published on these products in April 2013, a data point providing additional research in March 2014, and ongoing analysis.
The Bureau also expects to issue a final rule in early summer to create a comprehensive set of consumer protections for prepaid financial products, such as general purpose reloadable cards and other similar products, which are increasingly being used by consumers in place of traditional checking accounts or credit cards. The Bureau issued a proposed rule in November 2014, to bring prepaid products expressly within the ambit of Regulation E (which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) as prepaid accounts and create new provisions specific to such accounts. The Bureau also proposed to amend Regulation E and Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) to regulate prepaid accounts with overdraft services or credit features.
The Bureau also expects to issue a proposal to amend Regulation P, which implements the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Congress recently amended the GLBA to provide an exception to the requirement for financial institutions to deliver annual privacy notices when certain conditions are met. The Bureau plans to make conforming amendments to Regulation P for consistency with the statutory amendment.
Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on overdraft programs on checking accounts. The CFPB issued a white paper in June 2013, and a report in July 2014, based on supervisory data from several large banks that highlighted a number of possible consumer protection concerns, including how consumers opt in to overdraft coverage for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, overdraft coverage limits, transaction posting order practices, overdraft and insufficient funds fee structure, and involuntary account closures. The CFPB is continuing to engage in additional research and has begun consumer testing initiatives relating to the opt-in process.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on debt collection activities, which are the single largest source of complaints to the Federal Government of any industry. Building on the Bureau's November
The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority. The Bureau expects that its next larger participant rulemaking will focus on the markets for consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans for purposes of supervision. The Bureau is also considering whether rules to require registration of these or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical markets to help implement statutory directives and to assess whether regulation of other consumer financial products and services may be warranted. For example, the Bureau is starting its work to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau will focus on outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in the small business lending market and of the potential ways to implement section 1071. The CFPB then expects to begin developing proposed regulations concerning the data to be collected and determining the appropriate procedures and privacy protections needed for information-gathering and public disclosure
The Bureau is also continuing efforts to implement critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act to guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. Since 2013, the Bureau has issued regulations as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to implement certain protections for mortgage originations and servicing, integrate various federal mortgage disclosures, and amend mortgage reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Bureau is continuing intensive work to facilitate implementation of the new requirements, including follow-up rulemaking where warranted.
For example, the Bureau expects this summer to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make small clarifications and provide further regulatory guidance concerning its rule combining several federal mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The project to integrate and streamline the disclosures was mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act and took effect in October 2015. The rule is the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” mortgage initiative.
The Bureau also expects to issue a final rule in the summer to amend various provisions of its January 2013, mortgage servicing rules in Regulation X (which implements RESPA) and Regulation Z. The Bureau has proposed clarifications of the applicability of certain provisions when the borrower is in bankruptcy, additional enhancements to loss mitigation requirements, provisions to address the applicability of certain rules to successors in interest, and other amendments. The Bureau has been conducting consumer testing of certain disclosures as it prepares the final rule.
The Bureau is also working intensely to conduct outreach with industry and coordinate with other agencies to monitor and facilitate implementation of its rule to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to HMDA. The Bureau has already released a small entity compliance guide in connection with the rule, which was finalized in October 2015. Certain elements of the rule take effect in January 2017, and most new data collection requirements begin in January 2018. The Bureau is working to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting processes in conjunction with implementation.
The Bureau is also continuing to facilitate the full implementation of and compliance with other rules that it issued in January 2013, to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements concerning mortgage originations. Most recently, the Bureau has adjusted the thresholds defining small creditors and small creditors operating in rural and underserved areas for purposes of certain special rules concerning balloon loans, escrows, and other topics. The Bureau issued a final rule adjusting the thresholds for small creditors in October 2015. The Bureau then issued two rules to implement the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act. The first rule, which the Bureau issued on March 2, 2016, established a process for creditors to apply to the Bureau for an area to be designated as rural. The second rule, which the Bureau issued on March 22, 2016, was an interim final rule that revised the test to determine which small creditors operate in rural areas in light of the Congressional amendments to the underlying statutory language.
Finally, the Bureau is continuing to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in fall 2016, to reflect the results of this further prioritization and planning.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before July 1, 2016.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and emailed to:
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Eileen Williams, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408;
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities. The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the Executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the fall 2015 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 with respect to the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means of disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain and new information, changes of circumstances or of law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
On September 1, 2015, the Commission voted to publish a notice of withdrawal of the DFR in the
On September 30, 2015, staff sent a briefing package to the Commission for a DFR and NPRM to clarify when component part testing can be used and which textile products have been determined not to exceed the allowable lead content limits. On October 8, 2015, the Commission voted to publish the DFR and the NPRM in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
On July 10, 2015, the commission released a Declaratory Ruling and Order resolving 21 separate requests for clarification or other action regarding the TCPA. It clarified, among other things, that: nothing in the Communications Act of the Commission's rules prohibits carriers or other service providers from implementing consumer-initiated call-blocking technologies; equipment meets the TCPA's definition of “autodialer” if it has the “capacity” to store or produce random sequential numbers, and to dial them, even if it is not presently used for that purpose; an “app” provider that plays a minimal role in making a call, such as just proving the app itself, is not the maker of the call for TCPA purposes; consumers who have previously consented to robocalls may revoke that consent at any time and through any reasonable means; the TCPA requires the consent of the party called—the subscriber to a phone number or the customary user of the number—not the intended recipient of the call; and callers who make calls without knowledge or reassignment of a wireless phone number and with a reasonable basis to believe that they have valid consent to make the call to the wireless number should be able to initiate one call after reassignment as an additional opportunity to gain actual or constructive knowledge of the reassignment and cease future calls to the new subscriber. The Commission also exempted certain financial and healthcare-related calls, when free to the consumer, from the TCPA's consumer-consent requirement.
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525–1559 MHz and 1626.5–1660.5 MHz, 1610–1626.5 MHz and 2483.5–2500 MHz, and 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.
In the Report and Order (R&O), the Commission revised and streamlined its rules to modernize the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). The rules adopted in the R&O updated the ERS to a more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to provide an environment where creativity can thrive. To accomplish this transition, the Commission created three new types of ERS licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications industry. The Commission's actions also modified the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification. The Commission believes that these actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative problem-solving methodologies.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission proposes to modify the rules for program experimental licenses to permit experimentation for radio frequency (RF)-based medical devices, if the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; part 95, Personal Radio Services subpart H Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or part 95, subpart I Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. This proposal is designed to establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices as to permissible frequencies of operation.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers: to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International, Inc., filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the
The Commission denied Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provides three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell
The Commission stated in the Vehicular Radar R&O, “that no parties have come forward to support fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in this band,” and it decided not to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar use other than those for FOD detection applications at airport locations. Because Navtech first participated in the proceeding when it filed its petition well after the decision was published, its petition fails to meet the timeliness standard of section 1.429(d).
In connection with the Commission's decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10–28 and 11–90 (pertaining to vehicular radar).
In the Report and Order the Commission implemented allocation changes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC–07) and updated related service rules. The Commission took this action in order to conform its rules, to the extent practical, to the decisions that the international community made at WRC–07. This action will promote the advancement of new and expanded services and provide significant benefits to the American people. In addition, the Commission revised the International Table of Frequency Allocations within its rules to generally reflect the allocation changes made at the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC–12).
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports events. They enhance event productions in a variety of settings including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, and internet webcasts. They also help create high quality content that consumers demand and value. In particular, the Commission provide additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands following the upcoming incentive auction, and the Commission provide new opportunities for wireless microphone operations to access spectrum in other frequency bands where they can share use of the bands without harming existing users.
In the 2014 review, the Commission incorporated the record of the 2010 review, and sought additional data on market conditions and competitive indicators. The Commission also sought comment on whether to eliminate restrictions on newspaper/radio combined ownership and whether to eliminate the radio/television cross-ownership rule in favor of reliance on the local radio rule and the local television rule.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. As directed by the court, the Commission considered a socially and economic disadvantaged business definition as a possible oasis for favorable regulatory treatment.
In the 2014 Report and Order, the Commission adopted a rule providing that it is a violation of the duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for a television station that is ranked among the top four stations to negotiate retransmission consent jointly with another such station if the stations are not commonly owned and serve the same geographic market.
RIN: 3060–AK23
The incentive auction will consist of a reverse auction” to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that will allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elect voluntarily to participate in the auction have three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air, share their spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the broad rules for the incentive auction. Consistent with past practice, in December 2014, a public notice was issued asking for comment specific key components related to implementing the June 2014 Report and Order. The public notice asking for comment will be followed by a public notice with the specific procedures about how to participate in the incentive auction. The start of the Incentive Auction is planned for early 2016.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding,– unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930–1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to create a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550–3650 MHz band to be governed by a new part 96 of the Commission's rules. Access to and use of the 3550–3650 MHz band would be managed by a spectrum access system, incorporating a geo-location enabled dynamic database.
The Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission established a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service for shared wireless broadband use of the 3550–3700 MHz band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service is governed by a three-tiered spectrum authorization framework to accommodate a variety of commercial uses on a shared basis with incumbent federal and non-federal users of the band. Access and operations will be managed by a dynamic spectrum access system. The three tiers are: Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access. Rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service are found in Part 96 of the Commission's rules.
On November 10, 2014, the FCC released a Report and Order (R&O) and a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to revise rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular Service. In the R&O, the FCC eliminated various regulatory requirements and streamlined requirements remaining in place, while retaining Cellular Service licensees' ability to expand into an area that is not yet licensed. In the FNPRM, the FCC proposes and seeks comment on additional Cellular Service reforms of licensing rules and the radiated power rules, to promote flexibility and help foster the deployment of newer technologies such as LTE.
On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Second Report and Order to provide a limited expansion of the types of entities eligible for a low power auxiliary station license under part 74 of its rules to include qualifying professional sound companies, as well as owners and operators of large venues, as further explained in the order. The Commission also: (1) Denied requests to expand eligibility under part 74 to
Agency Contact: Paul D'Ari, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554,
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On October 16, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on proposed methodology for Connect America Fund recipients to measure and report speed and latency performance to fixed locations.
On December 18, 2014, the Commission released a Report and Order finalizing decisions necessary to proceed to Phase II of the Connect America Fund.
On December 19, 2014, the Commission released a Second E-rate Modernization Order adjusting program rules and support levels in order to meet long-term program goals for high speed connectivity.
On January 30, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on the Alliance of Rural Broadband applicants petition for limited waiver of certain RBE letter of credit requirements.
On February 4, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on NTCA's emergency petition for limited waiver of RBE letter of credit bank eligibility requirements.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
On February 13, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau provided additional guidance regarding how providers must categorize information. The Commission also adopted an Order on Reconsideration addressing petitions for reconsideration. Reports have been due quarterly beginning with the second quarter of 2015.
The Commission's analysis and proposals are divided into three parts. First, the Commission proposes to streamline the USOA accounting rules while preserving their existing structure. Second, the Commission seeks more focused comment on the accounting requirements needed for price cap carriers to address our statutory and regulatory obligations. Third, the Commission seeks comment on several related issues, including state requirements, rate effects, implementation, continuing property records, and legal authority.
In order to provide the best possible legal foundation for these rules, the Commission's Declaratory Ruling reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to title II of the Communications Act. Finally, in order to tailor title II to the 21st century broadband ecosystem, the Commission issued an Order forbearing from the majority of title II provisions, leaving in place a light-touch regime that will support regulatory action while simultaneously encouraging broadband investment, innovation, and deployment.
The Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: (i) Adopted rules updating the process by which incumbent LECs notify interconnecting entities of planned copper retirements; (ii) clarified that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing, reducing, or impairing a service used as a wholesale input, but only when the carrier's actions will discontinue, reduce, or impair service to end users, including a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring that to receive authority to discontinue, reduce, or impair a legacy TDM-based service special access service or commercial wholesale platform service that is used as a wholesale input by competitive providers, an incumbent LEC must as a condition to obtaining discontinuance authority commit to providing competitive carriers wholesale access on reasonably comparable rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed specific criteria for the Commission to consider in determining whether to authorize carriers to discontinue a legacy retail service in favor of a retail service based on a newer technology; (v) sought comment on updating the rules governing the discontinuance process, including regarding the timing of notice to consumers, the method for providing that notice, and providing notice to Tribal governments; (vi) sought comment on extending the end point of the interim rule adopted in the Report and Order as it applies to the commercial wholesale platform service; and (vii) sought comment on whether to adopt objective criteria to measure an ILEC's good faith in responding to competitive LEC requests for additional information in connection with a copper retirement notice and whether a planned copper retirement should be postponed when an ILEC has failed to fulfill the new good faith communication requirement adopted in the Report and Order.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p–ANI) codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period May 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016. The next agenda will be published in fall 2016.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its spring 2016 agenda as part of the Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Pre-rule Stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second section, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further.
A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda and which the Board has not completed.
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96–354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The NRC has completed 9 rulemaking activities since publication of its last Agenda on December 15, 2015 (80 FR 78108). This issuance of the NRC's Agenda contains 22 active and 27 long-term rulemaking activities: 2 are Economically Significant; 8 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 41 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 1 is Administrative rulemaking activity. In addition, 3 rulemaking activities impact small entities. The NRC is requesting comment on its rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by July 11, 2016.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
• For completed rulemaking activities go to
• For active rulemaking activities go to
• For long-term rulemaking activities go to
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–0044 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
A “Regulation Identifier Number” or RIN is given to a rulemaking activity when the NRC has published or plans to publish a
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of the last NRC Agenda on December 15, 2015 (80 FR 78108). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through March 18, 2016.
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
A key part of the NRC's regulatory program is an annual review of all ongoing and potential rulemaking activities. In conjunction with its budget and long-term planning process, the NRC compiles a Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) listing to develop program budget estimates and to determine the relative priority of NRC rulemaking activities. The most current listing of each rulemaking activity for the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 planning period is available on the NRC's Rulemaking Priorities Web page at
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The NRC did not receive any public comments on its last Agenda that published on December 15, 2015 (80 FR 78108).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chair's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for Spring 2016 reflect only the priorities of the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on March 18, 2016, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before July 11, 2016.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Anne Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, 202–551–5019.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
RIN: 3235–AL49
Sebastian Gomez Abero, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549,
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Surface Transportation Board (the Board), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), is publishing a semiannual agenda of: (1) Current and projected rulemakings; and (2) existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking. Listed below are the regulatory actions to be developed or reviewed during the next 12 months. Following each rule identified is a brief description of the rule, including its purpose and legal basis.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Board's best estimate of rules that will be considered over the next 12 months. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a regulatory flexibility agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Board is publishing its spring 2016 regulatory flexibility agenda as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.
• The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall have the responsibility for submitting the report described in subsection 209(a)(1) and for providing the information described in subsections 209(a)(2)(A) and (B).
• The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall have the responsibility for providing the description of significant activities described by subsection 209(a)(1) and the assessment described in subsection 209(a)(2)(C).
• The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of National Intelligence, shall have the responsibility for providing the strategy described in subsection 209(a)(2)(D).