| Page Range | 32855-33153 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 32953 - SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE BAC 6735-01 | |
| 80 FR 32978 - Government In the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 32995 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors | |
| 80 FR 32950 - Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of Arkansas | |
| 80 FR 32949 - National Environmental Education Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 32870 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter | |
| 80 FR 32994 - Submission for Review: Standard Form 2809, Health Benefits Election Form, 3206-0160 | |
| 80 FR 32946 - Eastern Research Group, Inc.; Transfer of Data | |
| 80 FR 32995 - Submission for Review: Federal Annuitant Benefits Survey | |
| 80 FR 32949 - Diclofop-methyl; Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 80 FR 32859 - Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Rate Setting for Community-Rated Plans | |
| 80 FR 33026 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons | |
| 80 FR 33025 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations | |
| 80 FR 32937 - Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 32983 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 32980 - Omaha Public Power District, Nebraska Public Power District | |
| 80 FR 32937 - Certain Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 | |
| 80 FR 32980 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 | |
| 80 FR 32981 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company | |
| 80 FR 32979 - Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee On Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 32952 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 32979 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 32973 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Claims Management Branch Program | |
| 80 FR 32954 - Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching Agreement | |
| 80 FR 32955 - Privacy Act of 1974; Computer Matching Agreement | |
| 80 FR 33006 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Out of the Box: The Rise of Sneaker Culture” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 33006 - Determination by the Secretary of State Relating to Iran Sanctions | |
| 80 FR 32974 - 60-Day Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection for HUD Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Proposed New HUD Services or Products | |
| 80 FR 33007 - U.S. National Commission for UNESCO; Notice of Closed Teleconference Meeting | |
| 80 FR 32971 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing | |
| 80 FR 32933 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Direct Investment Surveys: BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States | |
| 80 FR 32958 - The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Announces the State Median Income Estimates for Federal Fiscal Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 32967 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 32967 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 32944 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Borrower Defenses against Loan Repayment | |
| 80 FR 32929 - Information Collection Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Customer Feedback on the Farm Service Agency Service Delivery | |
| 80 FR 33015 - Confidential Business Information Reporting Requirements-BTS' Response to Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 32861 - Rulemaking Procedures-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Treatment of Confidential Business Information | |
| 80 FR 32867 - Revisions to the Electronic Submission of the Import Request of Shell Eggs | |
| 80 FR 33009 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 32936 - In the Matter of: Luis Armando Collins-Avila, Inmate Number-98902-308, Big Spring, Correctional Institution, 2001 Rickabaugh Drive, Big Spring, TX 79720 | |
| 80 FR 32977 - Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service Lost and Found Report | |
| 80 FR 33008 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 32943 - Notice of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB) Willow Grove, Pennsylvania | |
| 80 FR 32977 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 80 FR 32969 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 32968 - Proposed collection; 60-day comment request Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank (NLM) | |
| 80 FR 33011 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 33007 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 32932 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2015-2017 Business Research and Development and Innovation Surveys | |
| 80 FR 32944 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Talent Search (TS) Annual Performance Report | |
| 80 FR 32935 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration Regulations | |
| 80 FR 33013 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32945 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 32855 - Proceedings Before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Rules Relating to Suspension or Disbarment From Appearance and Practice | |
| 80 FR 32941 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 80 FR 32866 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Kamchatka Flounder in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 32976 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Indian Reservation Roads | |
| 80 FR 32975 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Student Transportation Form | |
| 80 FR 32951 - Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP089004XX | |
| 80 FR 32959 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32934 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Direct Investment Surveys: BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad | |
| 80 FR 32930 - Recreation Resource Advisory Committees | |
| 80 FR 32931 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
| 80 FR 32962 - Determination That Ondansetron (Ondansetron Hydrochloride) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 Milligrams in 50 Milliliters, Was Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 80 FR 32966 - Baxter Healthcare Corporation et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of One New Drug Application and Four Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 80 FR 32868 - Homeopathic Product Regulation: Evaluating the Food and Drug Administration's Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 33027 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Facilities | |
| 80 FR 32941 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19108; Correction | |
| 80 FR 32956 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32991 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 | |
| 80 FR 32989 - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 | |
| 80 FR 33003 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Intermarket Order Routing | |
| 80 FR 32995 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 13.8 Describing a Communication and Routing Service Known as BATS Connect | |
| 80 FR 33001 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 13.8 Describing a Communication and Routing Service Known as BATS Connect | |
| 80 FR 32997 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Solicitation Auction Mechanism | |
| 80 FR 33005 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC | |
| 80 FR 33001 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Opening Process | |
| 80 FR 32983 - In the Matter of Issuance of a Non-Manufacturing and Distribution Service Provider Order | |
| 80 FR 33016 - Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies | |
| 80 FR 32963 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Establishment of a Tobacco User Panel | |
| 80 FR 32939 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32940 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32962 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements | |
| 80 FR 33027 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32943 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletion | |
| 80 FR 32957 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32953 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 32945 - Chasm Hydro Partnership; Ampersand Chasm Falls Hydro LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 80 FR 32952 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10404, Piedmont Community Bank, Gray, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 32978 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 80 FR 32963 - Identification of Alternative In Vitro Bioequivalence Pathways Which Can Reliably Ensure In Vivo Bioequivalence of Product Performance and Quality of Non-Systemically Absorbed Drug Products for Animals; Reopening of the Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 32961 - Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Related Dystrophinopathies: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 32969 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 32947 - Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments To Terminate Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 80 FR 32951 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
| 80 FR 32954 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 32869 - Intercountry Adoptions: Regulatory Change To Prevent Accreditation and Approval Renewal Requests From Coming Due at the Same Time | |
| 80 FR 32909 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Small Business Subcontracting Improvements | |
| 80 FR 32960 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request; State Developmental Disabilities Council-Annual Program Performance Report (PPR) | |
| 80 FR 33014 - Request for Comments on the Reinstatement of an OMB Control Number for an Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 33099 - Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017 | |
| 80 FR 32874 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision and 2014 Five-Year Progress Report | |
| 80 FR 32879 - Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 80 FR 32922 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe for 135 Species | |
| 80 FR 33029 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Ovens | |
| 80 FR 32885 - Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals | |
| 80 FR 32857 - Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Economic Analysis Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) amends its regulations to clarify the standard used for determining when an accountant has engaged in “unethical or improper professional conduct”—grounds for a temporary or permanent denial of the privilege to practice before the Commission. The amendment enhances transparency by codifying the standard used in Commission adjudications of accountant conduct under the Commission's regulations.
This rule is effective July 10, 2015.
Jason Gizzarelli, Director, Office of Proceedings, (202) 418-5395,
Part 14 of the Commission's regulations addresses the circumstances under which the Commission may deny attorneys and accountants, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of practicing their respective professions before it. Rule 14.8 specifically provides that the Commission, after notice and opportunity for a hearing and an adverse finding by a preponderance of the evidence, may bar an attorney or accountant found: (a) Not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others; or (b) to be lacking in character or integrity; or (c) to have engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct either in the course of an adjudicatory, investigative, rulemaking, or other proceeding before the Commission or otherwise.
Prior to this amendment, rule 14.8 did not further articulate what constitutes “unethical or improper professional conduct” by an accountant under paragraph (c). However, since 1996, the Commission has filed six administrative actions alleging violations of rule 14.8 against accountants appearing and practicing before it.
Section 201.102(e) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (“SEC's”) regulations (“SEC rule of practice 102(e)”)
The standard for accountant “improper professional conduct” expressed in SEC rule of practice 102(e)(1) is consistent with that applied by the Commission in its earlier-referenced adjudications of accountant conduct under rule 14.8.
On October 23, 2014, the Commission published a proposed amendment to rule 14.8 (“the Proposal”) for public comment.
The Commission received three comments on the Proposal.
Accountants auditing Commission registrants perform a critical gatekeeper role in protecting the financial integrity of the derivatives markets and the investing public. Accountants appearing before the Commission in this capacity must understand the business operations of their clients and conduct financial audits both in accordance with applicable professional principles and standards and in satisfaction of all the requirements of the Commission's regulations.
Rule 14.8 can be an effective remedial tool to ensure that the accountants appearing before the Commission are competent to do so and do not pose a threat to the Commission's registration and examination functions. Accountants who engage in intentional or knowing misconduct, which includes reckless conduct, clearly pose such a threat, as do accountants who engage in certain specified types of negligent conduct.
The Commission believes that a single, highly unreasonable error in judgment or other act made in circumstances warranting heightened scrutiny conclusively demonstrates a lack of competence to practice before the Commission. Repeated unreasonable conduct may also indicate a lack of competence. Therefore, if the Commission finds that an accountant acted egregiously in a single instance or unreasonably in more than one instance and that this conduct indicates a lack of competence, then that accountant engaged in improper professional conduct under rule 14.8's standard.
The amendment to rule 14.8 is not meant, however, to encompass every professional misstep. A single judgment error, for example, even if unreasonable when made, may not indicate a lack of competence to practice before the Commission sufficient to require Commission action. The amendment seeks to provide greater clarity with respect to the Commission's standard for assessing accountant conduct, as developed to-date through administrative adjudications. At the same time, however, like the SEC regulation after which the amendment is modeled, the amendment elaborates standards that are to be applied in adjudications on a case-by-case basis, a method that promotes equitable application of the standards as warranted upon full consideration of the facts of each case.
Similarly, as the SEC noted when it amended its rule of practice in 1998,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider whether the rules they may adopt will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The amendment to Rule 14.8 does not establish a collection of information for which the Commission would be obligated to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
Reckless accounting practices threaten serious harm to market participants and, potentially, to the financial system as a whole.
Accordingly, the amendment's chief benefit derives from clarifying the specific contours of the Commission's existing rule 14.8(c) standard as applied to accountant behavior and by codifying this refined approach in the Commission's regulations. Through this codification, the standard will be more transparent and accessible to professional practitioners, market participants, and the public generally. As a result, accountants appearing before the Commission will have the benefit of prominent notice of the specific standards of conduct to which they are held, and the consequences of failing to meet them. To the extent an
The Commission anticipates no material cost burden attributable to the amendment for market participants or accounting professionals to whom the amendment is addressed. Again, this amendment merely articulates with more precision the contours of the more generally-stated standard of rule 14.8(c) as it has existed prior to this amendment; further, this pre-existing standard has encompassed standards governing the accounting profession generally and with which accounting professionals have needed to comply. Since the clarifying amendment effects no substantive change to the rule 14.8 standard, accountants practicing before the Commission should already be in compliance. Consequently, they should experience no cost to change their behavior to comply with the rule as amended.
In the following, the Commission considers the amendment relative to the CEA section 15(a) factors.
As noted, improper accounting practices may help to cover up financial frauds or foster improper managerial decisions and may pose a threat to the safety of customer funds. By articulating the Commission's standards in more specific, codified, and readily accessible form, the amendment safeguards against accountants professing lack of knowledge of the applicable standards—or exploiting perceived ambiguities in them—to the detriment of market participants and the public.
Threats to the safety of customer funds generate public distrust in financial market integrity. To the extent this rule amendment better informs accountants and fosters their understanding of the Commission's standards and the consequences of improper actions—actions that potentially could threaten the safety of customer funds—the amendment promotes the integrity of financial markets.
The Commission does not foresee that the amendment will directly impact price discovery.
As noted, improper accounting practices may lead to unnecessary risks being undertaken, as certain risk measures or managerial decisions are based on accounting data. To the extent the amendment improves accountants' understanding of the Commission's standards, thereby deterring improper conduct that potentially could result in unnecessary risks being undertaken, the amendment promotes sound risk management practices.
By harmonizing the rule 14.8(c) standard for accountants with that of SEC rule of practice 102(e), the amendment helps to ensure consistency and reduces potential for confusion.
Administrative practice and procedure, Professional conduct and competency standards, Ethical conduct, Penalties.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 14 as set forth below:
Pub. L. 93-463, sec. 101(a)(11), 88 Stat. 1391, 7 U.S.C. 4a(j).
(c) To have engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct either in the course of any adjudicatory, investigative or rulemaking or other proceeding before the Commission or otherwise. With respect to the professional conduct of persons licensed to practice as accountants, “unethical or improper professional conduct” means:
(1) Intentional or knowing conduct, including reckless conduct, that results in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards; or
(2) Either of the following two types of negligent conduct:
(i) A single instance of highly unreasonable conduct that results in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards in circumstances in which an accountant knows, or should know, that heightened scrutiny is warranted.
(ii) Repeated instances of unreasonable conduct, each resulting in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards, which indicate a lack of competence to practice before the Commission.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission extends the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) as a pilot program for one additional year. The NDBEDP provides up to $10 million annually to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Extending the pilot program enables the NDBEDP to continue providing communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind without interruption while the Commission considers whether to adopt rules to govern a permanent NDBEDP.
Effective June 10, 2015.
Rosaline Crawford, Consumer and
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 15-57, Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order (
1. Section 105 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) added section 719 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which directed the Commission to establish rules to provide up to $10 million annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010); Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010); 47 U.S.C. 620. In 2011, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot program, with an option to extend it for an additional year.
2. On August 1, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice inviting comment on which rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program should be retained and which should be modified to make the permanent NDBEDP more effective and more efficient.
3. In the
The Commission currently has an Office and Management and Budget (OMB) collection 3060-1146 pending OMB's review and approval of an extension submitted to OMB on April 22, 2015. This collection contains information collection requirements for the NDBEDP pilot program, which are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public Law 104-13. However, document FCC 15-57 does not modify the existing information collection requirements contained in OMB collection 3060-1146, and it does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. Public Law 107-198.
The Commission will not send a copy of FCC 15-57 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, because the Commission adopted no rules therein.
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 719 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 620, that document FCC 15-57
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule that makes changes to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation (FEHBAR). These changes: define which subscriber groups may be included for consideration as similarly sized subscriber groups (SSSGs); require the SSSG to be traditional community rated; establish that traditional community rated (TCR) Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plans must select only one rather than two SSSGs; and make conforming changes to FEHB contract language to account for the new medical loss ratio (MLR) standard for most community rated FEHB plans.
Wenqiong Fu, Policy Analyst, at
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final rule to update the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation to accommodate the new FEHB specific medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement for most community rated plans as well as to update the similarly sized subscriber group (SSSG) requirement for traditional community rated plans.
OPM received a comment regarding the impact the regulation will have on future premiums in the FEHB Program. Based on the analysis, OPM does not believe that there will be a significant impact in aggregate on the entire FEHBP, and as such, it is unlikely that there will be any major substantive impacts on future premium increases in the FEHBP as a whole.
A commenter raised a concern that, by utilizing TCR plans, OPM may potentially cost the government more money. The commenter's justification was that insurers will adjust rates to the highest expected rate if they have to provide the same rates to all groups. Traditional Community Rating is guided by state law and all groups pay the average cost of coverage for the community. As such, it is not believed plans will adjust rates to the highest expected rate.
A commenter suggested that (1) OPM should exclude customers of carrier subsidiaries from SSSG consideration and (2) OPM should also exclude from SSSG analysis “[an] entity that maintains a contractual arrangement with the carrier to provide healthcare benefits.”
OPM declines to make this change. We require these entities to be considered for SSSG comparison because we do not want businesses to form distinct entities under a corporate umbrella for the sole purposes of getting a lower rate for non-FEHBP groups. Our goal is to identify one non-FEHBP subscriber group (employer groups covered by an issuer) that is closest in size to the FEHBP group and, if the group received a discounted rate, the carrier must provide the discount to the FEHBP. We feel that, if carriers have the ability to shift groups under a corporate umbrella, the most appropriate SSSG will not be available for comparison to the FEHBP group and the FEHB program will be at greater risk. OPM also is not amending 48 CFR 1602.170-13(b)(1)(iv). Our intention is not to include SSSGs of entities with whom a Carrier contracts to provide health insurance coverage for its own employees. Additionally, we do not intend to set up a reinsurance arrangement. Our intent is to include entities where a Carrier has contracted provision of benefits to its customers to a third-party entity.
OPM certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects health insurance carriers in the FEHB Program.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. OPM has examined the impact of this final rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule is not considered a major rule because there will be no increased costs to Federal agencies, Federal Employees, or Federal retirees in their health insurance premiums.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
Government employees, Government procurement, Health insurance reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OPM amends chapter 16 of title 48 CFR (FEHBAR) as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8913; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 48 CFR 1.301.
(a) A
(1) As of the date specified by OPM in the rate instructions, has a subscriber enrollment closest to the FEHBP subscriber enrollment;
(2) Uses traditional community rating; and,
(3) Meets the criteria specified in the rate instructions issued by OPM.
(b) Any group with which an entity enters into an agreement to provide
(1) An entity's subscriber groups may be included as an SSSG if the entity is any of the following:
(i) The carrier;
(ii) A division or subsidiary of the carrier;
(iii) A separate line of business or qualified separate line of business of the carrier; or
(iv) An entity that maintains a contractual arrangement with the carrier to provide healthcare benefits.
(2) A subscriber group covered by an entity meeting any of the criteria under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be included for comparison as a SSSG if the entity meets any of the following criteria:
(i) It reports financial statements on a consolidated basis with the carrier; or
(ii) Shares, delegates, or otherwise contracts with the carrier, any portion of its workforce that involves the management, design, pricing, or marketing of the healthcare product.
(c) The following groups must be excluded from SSSG consideration:
(1) Groups the carrier rates by the method of retrospective experience rating;
(2) Groups consisting of the carrier's own employees;
(3) Medicaid groups, Medicare-only groups, and groups that receive only excepted benefits as defined at 26 U.S.C. 9832(c);
(4) A purchasing alliance whose rate-setting is mandated by the State or local government;
(5) Administrative Service Organizations (ASOs);
(6) Any other group excluded from consideration as specified in the rate instructions issued by OPM.
(d) OPM shall determine the FEHBP rate by selecting the lowest rate derived by using rating methods consistent with those used to derive the SSSG rate.
(e) In the event that a State-mandated TCR carrier has no SSSG, then it will be subject to the FEHB specific MLR requirement.
(a)
5 U.S.C. 8913; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 48 CFR 1.301; 5 U.S.C. 8902.
(c) * * *
(2) For contracts with fewer than 1,500 enrollee contracts for which the FEHB Program premiums for the contract term will be at or above the threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1), OPM will require the carrier to submit its rate proposal, utilization data, and a certificate of accurate cost or pricing data required in 1615.406-2. In addition, OPM will require the carrier to complete the proposed rates form containing cost and pricing data, and the Community-Rate Questionnaire, but will not require the carrier to send these documents to OPM. The carrier will keep the documents on file for periodic auditor and actuarial review in accordance with 1652.204-70. OPM will perform a basic reasonableness test on the data submitted. Rates that do not pass this test will be subject to further OPM review.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For contracts with 1,500 or more enrollee contracts for which the FEHB Program premiums for the contract term will be at or above the threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1), OPM will require the carrier to provide the data and methodology used to determine the FEHB Program rates. OPM will also require the data and methodology used to determine the rates for the carrier's SSSG. The carrier will provide cost or pricing data required by OPM in its rate instructions for the applicable contract period. OPM will evaluate the data to ensure that the rate is reasonable and consistent with the requirements in this chapter. If necessary, OPM may require the carrier to provide additional documentation.
(B) Contracts will be subject to a downward price adjustment if OPM determines that the Federal group was charged more than it would have been charged using a methodology consistent with that used for the SSSG. Such adjustments will be based on the rate determined by using the methodology (including discounts) the carrier used for the SSSG.
(4) Contracts will be subject to a downward price adjustment if OPM determines that the Federal group was charged more than it would have been charged using a methodology consistent with that used for the similarly-sized subscriber group (SSSG). Such adjustments will be based on the rate determined by using the methodology (including discounts) the carrier used for the SSSG.
This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) The cost or pricing data submitted (or, if not submitted, maintained and identified by the carrier as supporting documentation) to the Contracting officer or the Contracting officer's representative or designee, in support of the __* FEHB Program rates were developed in accordance with the requirements of 48 CFR Chapter 16 and the FEHB Program contract and are accurate, complete, and current as of the date this certificate is executed; and (2) the methodology used to determine the FEHB Program rates is consistent with the methodology used to determine the rates for the carrier's Similarly Sized Subscriber Group.
* Insert the year for which the rates apply.
5 U.S.C. 8913; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 48 CFR 1.301.
(a) If any rate established in connection with this contract was increased because:
(1) The Carrier submitted, or kept in its files in support of the FEHBP rate, cost or pricing data that were not complete, accurate, or current as certified in one of the Certificates of Accurate Cost or Pricing Data (FEHBAR 1615.406-2);
(2) The Carrier submitted, or kept in its files in support of the FEHBP rate, cost or pricing data that were not accurate as represented in the rate reconciliation documents or MLR Calculation;
(3) The Carrier developed FEHBP rates for traditional community rated plans with a rating methodology and structure inconsistent with that used to develop rates for a similarly sized subscriber group (see FEHBAR 1602.170-13) as certified in the Certificate of Accurate Cost or Pricing Data for Community Rated Carriers;
(4) The Carrier, who is not mandated by the State to use traditional community rating, developed FEHBP rates with a rating methodology and structure inconsistent with its State-filed rating methodology (or if not required to file with the State, their standard written and established rating methodology) or inconsistent with the FEHB specific medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements (see FEHBAR 1602.170-13); or
(5) The Carrier submitted or, kept in its files in support of the FEHBP rate, data or information of any description that were not complete, accurate, and current—then, the rate shall be reduced in the amount by which the price was increased because of the defective data or information.
(c) When the Contracting Officer determines that the rates shall be reduced and the Government is thereby entitled to a refund or that the Government is entitled to a MLR penalty, the Carrier shall be liable to and shall pay the FEHB Fund at the time the overpayment is repaid or at the time the MLR penalty is paid—
(1) Simple interest on the amount of the overpayment from the date the overpayment was paid from the FEHB Fund to the Carrier until the date the overcharge is liquidated. In calculating the amount of interest due, the quarterly rate determinations by the Secretary of the Treasury under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2) applicable to the periods the overcharge was retained by the Carrier shall be used;
(2) A penalty equal to the amount of overpayment, if the Carrier knowingly submitted cost or pricing data which was incomplete, inaccurate, or noncurrent; and,
(3) Simple interest on the MLR penalty from the date on which the penalty should have been paid to the FEHB Fund to the date on which the penalty was or will be actually paid to the FEHB fund. The interest rate shall be calculated as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(b) * * *
(2). Effective January 1, 2013 all community rated plans must develop the FEHBP's rates using their State-filed rating methodology or, if not required to file with the State, their standard written and established rating methodology. A carrier who mandated by the State to use traditional community rating will be subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this clause. All other carriers will be subject to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this clause.
(i) The subscription rates agreed to in this contract shall meet the FEHB-specific MLR threshold as defined in FEHBAR 1602.170-14. The ratio of a plan's incurred claims, including the carrier's expenditures for activities that improve health care quality, to total premium revenue shall not be lower than the FEHB-specific MLR threshold published annually by OPM in its rate instructions.
(ii) The subscription rates agreed to in this contract shall be equivalent to the subscription rates given to the carrier's similarly sized subscriber group (SSSG) as defined in FEHBAR 1602.170-13. The subscription rates shall be determined according to the carrier's established policy, which must be applied consistently to the FEHBP and to the carrier's SSSG. If the SSSG receives a rate lower than that determined according to the carrier's established policy, it is considered a discount. The FEHBP must receive a discount equal to or greater than the carrier's SSSG discount.
(3) If subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this clause, then:
(i) If, at the time of the rate reconciliation, the subscription rates are found to be lower than the equivalent rates for the SSSG, the carrier may include an adjustment to the Federal group's rates for the next contract period, except as noted in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this clause.
(ii) If, at the time of the rate reconciliation, the subscription rates are found to be higher than the equivalent rates for the SSSG, the carrier shall reimburse the Fund, for example, by reducing the FEHB rates for the next contract term to reflect the difference between the estimated rates and the rates which are derived using the methodology of the SSSG, except as noted in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this clause.
(iii) Carriers may provide additional guaranteed discounts to the FEHBP that are not given to the SSSG. Any such guaranteed discounts must be clearly identified as guaranteed discounts. After the beginning of the contract year for which the rates are set, these guaranteed FEHBP discounts may not be adjusted.
(7) Carriers may provide additional guaranteed discounts to the FEHBP. Any such guaranteed discounts must be clearly identified as guaranteed discounts. After the beginning of the contract year for which the rates are set, these guaranteed FEHBP discounts may not be adjusted.
(8) Carriers may not impose surcharges (loadings not defined based on an established rating method) on the FEHBP subscription rates or use surcharges in the rate reconciliation process. If the carrier is subject to the SSSG rules and imposes a surcharge on the SSSG, the carrier cannot impose the surcharge on FEHB.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule.
FMCSA amends its Rulemaking Procedures by adding a new section establishing the standards and procedures that the Agency will use regarding the submission of certain
This final rule is effective June 10, 2015.
Kim McCarthy, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division (MC-CCR), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; by telephone at 202-366-0834. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the public docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
Section 552(b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exempts from public disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential”. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). There is a substantial body of Federal case law interpreting and upholding this exemption, commonly referred to as “FOIA Exemption 4.” An underlying theme of the FOIA Exemption 4 cases is that the exemption is “intended to protect the government as well as the individual,” including advancing the efficiency of government operations.
Like other Federal agencies, FMSCA has adopted procedural rules implementing the FOIA. 49 CFR 389.7. Agencies' procedures for exempting CBI from disclosure under FOIA vary. In today's rule, FMCSA establishes procedures that the Agency will use for the submission of certain CBI that is presumptively exempt from public disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4. These procedures apply to information voluntarily submitted to the Agency in response to a notice-and-comment rulemaking and that falls within the designated classes of information established in accordance with the rule.
Today's rule incorporates the confidentiality standard for CBI adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
This regulation is published as a final rule and effective on June 10, 2015. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agencies may promulgate final rules only after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). This requirement does not apply, however, to “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their benefits and costs. 49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d). Those factors are discussed in this final rule.
FMCSA has a recurring occasional need to receive CBI in order to improve the Agency's ability to promulgate regulations that: (1) Are evidence-based; (2) take into account the operational and financial realities of regulated parties; and (3) result in improved safety for motor carriers, drivers, and the general public. Historically, FMCSA has received limited amounts of usable data submitted as part of the rulemaking comment process, even in response to specific requests for data on particular topics. FMCSA believes that the procedures and confidentiality protections set forth in today's rule will optimize the Agency's ability to receive necessary CBI in response to notice-and-comment rulemakings.
The Agency recognizes the need to add confidentiality assurances to commenters who provide CBI. Today's rule balances the interests of FMCSA, persons who choose to submit CBI to the Agency, and the public. First, this rule responds to FMCSA's need for pertinent data by facilitating its ability to obtain information necessary for the development of particular rulemakings. Today's rule authorizes the FMCSA Administrator to define classes of information, which are presumptively confidential, based on the confidentiality standard for voluntarily submitted information adopted by the D.C. Circuit in
Second, by making confidential class determinations, this rule will alleviate the burden on commenters to submit individual claims for confidential treatment, as well as the Agency's burden to evaluate requests for confidential treatment submitted on an individual basis.
Third, this rule responds to the interests of commenters who wish to protect their submitted information from disclosure in the public domain because it is confidential within the meaning of the FOIA. It establishes the standards and procedures by which submitters of CBI must substantiate their request for confidential treatment. Today's rule also states that, if those qualifying requirements are met and maintained, the Agency will not disclose the CBI in the public docket or in response to a FOIA request.
Fourth, this rule responds to the public's interest in transparency and disclosure in the rulemaking process. It requires FMCSA to describe through summarization, aggregation, or some other de-identified means, any CBI submitted in accordance with these procedures and on which the Agency relies in developing a final rule. FMCSA must also explain how such CBI assisted in formulating that final rule.
Finally, this rule permits the public disclosure of information initially designated as confidential by the submitter if the Agency finds that the submitter fails to meet or maintain the confidentiality criteria established in this rule. In addition, to the extent that commenters who choose to submit CBI in accordance with the adopted procedures also wish to provide
FMCSA considered the impact of this procedural rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The Agency has determined this rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, or DOT's regulatory policies and procedures.
FMCSA expects that the economic impact of this rule will be minimal, as it merely codifies the procedures by which CBI may be voluntarily submitted to FMCSA in connection with notice-and-comment rulemakings. This rule does not alter the confidentiality threshold established by FOIA Exemption 4, as currently reflected in the FOIA procedures of both FMCSA (49 CFR 389.5(b)) and the DOT (49 CFR part 7). It is adopted to address the concerns of potential submitters of CBI as well as the Agency's need to receive certain commercial and financial information that is eligible for confidential treatment under FOIA Exemption 4.
Today's rule imposes a minimal additional burden on parties who elect to submit CBI to FMCSA since they will now be required to complete a standardized affidavit certifying that the submitted information meets the confidentiality threshold established by FOIA Exemption 4. FMCSA expects that the amount of time and resources that CBI submitters will devote to completing the standardized CBI affidavit will be minimal. This rule does not change the current burden imposed on submitters to ensure that the information they designate as confidential meets the established FOIA criteria.
The Agency may realize additional costs associated with its use of resources to review submitted CBI, subjected to request for public disclosure under the FOIA, in order to confirm that the information is withheld from the public in accordance with FOIA Exemption 4. We expect the increase in the use of Agency resources devoted to FOIA review will be minimal. Although this rule does not change the Agency's current role in reviewing confidential information subject to request for disclosure under the FOIA, we anticipate that the volume of FOIA requests may increase due to the fact that FMCSA will specifically solicit CBI for submission under informational categories established in accordance with today's final rule. Today's rule is intended to increase the amount of CBI submitted to the Agency. FMCSA expects any additional FOIA review costs will be minimal, however, since CBI will be submitted under informational categories already determined by the Agency to be presumptively confidential.
FMCSA believes the potential marginal increase in costs associated with the adoption of this rule is more than outweighed by the benefits for both submitters of CBI and for the Agency. In addition, this rule enhances FMCSA's ability to promulgate rules that are data-driven and evidence-based; therefore, regulated entities and the public will also benefit.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Ms. Kim McCarthy, 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 $151 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2012 levels) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This final rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this final rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not involve the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs do not apply to this program.
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
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.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this action under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this rule in accordance with the E.O. and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 389 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 113, 501
(a)
(b)
(1) FMCSA seeks to obtain related items of commercial or financial
(2) The class determination would facilitate the voluntary submission of information necessary to inform the rulemaking; and
(3) One or more characteristics common to each item of information in the class will necessarily result in identical treatment, and that it is therefore appropriate to treat all such items as a class under this section.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The information is submitted to the Agency voluntarily;
(2) The information is of a type customarily not disclosed to the public by the submitter;
(3) The information, to the best of the submitter's knowledge and belief, has not been disclosed to the public; and
(4) The information satisfies the substantive criteria for the class as established by the Administrator under authority of paragraph (b) of this section.
(g)
(h)
(1) If a requester brings suit to compel the disclosure of information submitted under this section, the Agency shall promptly notify the submitter.
(2) The submitter may be joined as a necessary party in any suit brought against the Department of Transportation or FMCSA for non-disclosure.
(i)
(j)
(i) Submitters may, within 10 days of receipt of such notice, provide the Agency with a written statement explaining why the submitted information conforms to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section and thus, should not be disclosed. The Agency shall continue to withhold the information from the public docket until completing its review of the submitter's statement. The Agency may, following timely review of the submitter's statement, determine that disclosure is not required under this paragraph. In any event, the Agency shall advise the submitter in writing of its decision concerning whether the information shall be disclosed in the public docket.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Notice of the Agency's intention to disclose the submitted information is not required if the Administrator determines that the entity submitting such information has authorized its disclosure to the public.
(3) If, at the time the Administrator determines that the submitted information fails to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (f), such information is the subject of a FOIA request, the requirements of 49 CFR 7.29 shall apply.
I, _______, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR part 389, section 389.9, state as follows:
(1) I am [insert official's name, title] and I am authorized by [insert name of entity] to execute this Affidavit on its behalf;
(2) I certify that the information contained in the document(s) attached to this Affidavit is submitted voluntarily, with the claim that the information is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4);
(3) I certify that the information contained in the documents attached to this Affidavit is of a type not customarily disclosed to the general public by [insert name of entity];
(4) I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the information contained in the documents attached to this Affidavit, for which confidential treatment is claimed, has never been released to the general public or been made available to any unauthorized person outside [insert name of entity];
(5) I certify that this information satisfies the substantive criteria set forth in the notice published in the
(6) I make no representations beyond those made in this Affidavit, and, in particular, I make no representations as to whether this information may become available outside [insert name of entity] due to unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure; and
(7) I certify under penalties of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Executed on this __day of __, __.
_________(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2015 Kamchatka flounder initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 6, 2015, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2015.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2015 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI is 5,525 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2015 Kamchatka flounder ITAC in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,000 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 3,525 mt as incidental catch. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Kamchatka flounder in the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Kamchatka flounder to directed fishing in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 4, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
This proposed rule invites comments on revising the regulations (7 CFR part 57) governing the inspection of eggs. This rule would streamline the importation process for table eggs, hatching eggs and inedible liquid egg by requiring that applications for inspection be submitted electronically.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 10, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this proposed rule by using the electronic process available at
Michelle Degenhart, Assistant to the Director, QAD, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0258, Room 3932S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250 or by facsimile to (202) 690-2746 or via email
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers the Shell Egg Surveillance Program, a mandatory inspection program for shell eggs under the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031
On February 19, 2014, the President signed Executive Order 13659 (EO), streamlining the export/import process for America's businesses. EO 13659 outlines the use of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) to modernize and simplify the import and export of cargo. ITDS will allow traders to make a single electronic report and the relevant data will be distributed to the appropriate agencies. Costs will be reduced for business and government. An agency will obtain data more quickly through electronic filings. Automated processing will enhance an agency's ability to process cargo more expeditiously and to identify unsafe, dangerous, or prohibited shipments. This information will be assessed electronically by the relevant government agency resulting in border related decisions which will be electronically sent back to the trade. AMS will incorporate electronic filing of import requests for shell eggs to comply with EO 13659.
AMS has participated in the development of the ITDS, a government-wide project to build an electronic “single-window” for collecting and sharing trade data for reporting imports and exports among Federal agencies. The goal of the ITDS is to eliminate the redundant reporting of data, replacing multiple filings, many of which are on paper, with a single electronic filing. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a U.S. commercial trade processing system that automates border processing of products. The ACE system connects the trade community and participating government agencies by providing a single, centralized, online access point. When applicants file entries with the CBP through ACE, relevant data is electronically distributed to appropriate government agencies. AMS considers any electronic data entered in ACE as certified by the applicant. In addition, AMS considers any electronic records, digital images, data, or information from a foreign government for foreign inspection and foreign establishment certification to be equivalent to paper records and certified by the foreign government. When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic information technology (EIT), Federal agencies are required by Section 508(a) (1) (a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) to ensure that EIT is accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public. The ACE interface meets these requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons specified above, we are proposing to amend the shell egg import regulations to include that applicants may submit LPS Form 222-Import Request electronically.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603 we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Based on the information we have, the AMS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that, this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposal has been reviewed under executive order 12988, Civil
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175. Consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule, and there are no new requirements. Should any changes become necessary they would be submitted to OMB for approval. The assigned OMB control number is 0581-0113.
AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Eggs and egg products, Exports, Food grades and standards, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in this Proposed Rule, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 57 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 1031-1056.
Each person importing any eggs as defined in these regulations, unless exempted by § 57.960 shall make application for inspection upon LPS Form 222—Import Request, to the Chief, Grading Branch, Poultry Programs, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or to the Poultry Programs, Grading Branch office nearest the port where the product is to be offered for importation. The application may be filed through electronic submission via
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public hearing; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the notice of public hearing that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice of public hearing published March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16327). Submit either electronic or written comments by August 21, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
Lesley DeRenzo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5161, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4612.
In the
FDA is extending the comment period for an additional 60 days, until August 21, 2015. The Agency believes that an additional 60-day extension of the comment period for the notice of public hearing will allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying Agency decision making on these important issues.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Department of State.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the Department of State (Department) regulation on the accreditation and approval of adoption service providers in intercountry adoptions. Most agencies and persons currently accredited received that accreditation at approximately the same time, which has resulted in a surge of concurrent renewal applications for consideration by the Council on Accreditation (COA), the designated accrediting entity. Permitting some agencies or persons to qualify for an extension by one year of the accreditation or approval period will result in a more even distribution of applications for renewal in a given year. By distributing renewals, and the resources needed to process them, COA will be further enabled to effectively and consistently carry out its other functions.
Comments are due by July 10, 2015.
•
•
• All comments should include the commenter's name and the organization the commenter represents (if applicable). If the Department is unable to read your comment for any reason, the Department might not be able to consider your comment. Please be advised that all comments will be considered public comments and might be viewed by other commenters; therefore, do not include any information you would not wish to be made public. After the conclusion of the comment period, the Department will publish a final rule (in which it will address relevant comments) as expeditiously as possible.
Carine Rosalia, Office of Legal Affairs, Overseas Citizen Services, U.S. Department of State, CA/OCS/L, SA-17, Floor 10, Washington, DC 20522-1710; (202) 485-6079.
This proposed rule amends procedural aspects of the Intercountry Adoption Accreditation Regulations concerning the length of accreditation or approval found in 22 CFR part 96. Subpart G governs decisions on applications for accreditation and approval. Section 96.60 provides for accreditation or approval for a period of four years. Section 96.60 does not currently provide the opportunity to stagger the renewal applications, which results in many renewal applications coming due at the same time.
This proposed rule will aid the accrediting entity in managing its workload. In particular, the amendments to this section will allow for a one-year extension of previously-granted accreditation or approval, not to exceed five years total, based on criteria included in the rule, and summarized here.
There will be criteria for selecting which agencies or persons are eligible for the one-year extension. As a threshold matter, only agencies and persons that have no pending adoption-related complaint investigations or adverse actions will be eligible for an extension under this procedure. Also, those entities that have undergone a change in corporate or internal structure (such as a merger or a leadership change in chief executive or chief financial officer) since their initial accreditation/approval or last renewal will not qualify for an extension under this procedure. If the agency or person meets the threshold criteria, in order to ensure that the extension achieves its purpose of staggering renewals thereafter, the Secretary, in his discretion may consider additional factors including, but not limited to, the agency's or person's volume of intercountry adoption cases in the year preceding the application for renewal or extension, the agency's or person's U.S. state licensure record, and the number of extensions available.
Since the President signed into law the Universal Accreditation Act of 2012, approximately 40 new agencies received accreditation, all in the same year. The resulting surge in the number of agencies requiring review in certain years argued strongly for establishing a mechanism that would allow COA to better manage the distribution of renewals. The procedure outlined in this rulemaking will allow a more even distribution of the number of renewals an accrediting entity must review in a given year.
The Department invites comment on the procedures described above.
The Department is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking with a 30-day period for public comments.
Consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532) does not apply to this rulemaking.
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this rulemaking to be an economically significant action under the Executive Order. The proposed rule will not add any new legal requirements to Part 96; it merely adds administrative flexibility to the work of the Department-designated accrediting entity.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will it have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and No. 13132.
The Department has reviewed the proposed rule in light of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department has considered this proposed rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that it is consistent with the guidance therein.
This proposed rule does not impose information collection requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Adoption, Child welfare, Children, Immigration, Foreign persons, Accreditation, Approval.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State proposes to amend 22 CFR part 96 as follows:
The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998), 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954; The Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-276, 42 U.S.C. 14925.
(a) The accrediting entity will accredit or approve an agency or person for a period of four years, except as provided in § 96.60(b). The accreditation or approval period will commence on the date that the agency or person is granted accreditation or approval.
(b) In order to stagger the renewal requests from agencies and persons applying for accreditation or approval and to prevent the renewal requests from coming due at the same time, the accrediting entity may extend the period of accreditation it has previously granted for no more than one year and such that the total period of accreditation does not exceed five years, as long as the agency or person remains in substantial compliance with the applicable standards in subpart F of this part. The only agencies and persons that may qualify for an extension are:
(1) Those that have no pending Complaint Registry investigations or adverse actions (see § 96.70); and
(2) Those that have not undergone a change in corporate or internal structure (such as a merger or change in chief executive or financial officer) during their current accreditation or approval period. For agencies and persons that meet these two criteria, the Secretary, in his or her discretion, may consider additional factors in deciding upon an extension including, but not limited to, the agency's or person's volume of intercountry adoption cases in the year preceding the application for renewal or extension, the agency's or person's state licensure record, and the number of extensions available.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On May 11, 2015, the State of Washington submitted a SIP revision to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these interstate transport requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0330, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On September 21, 2006, the EPA promulgated a final rule revising the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM
The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two elements of this section, specified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting air pollutants that will “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.
On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM
In this action, the EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
On May 11, 2015, Washington submitted a SIP to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM
With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the Washington 2006 PM
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
With respect to this proposed action, the EPA notes that no single piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
The EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping three-year periods (
The State of Washington was not covered by the modeling analyses available for the CAIR and the Transport Rule. The approach described above is similar to the approach utilized by the EPA in promulgating the CAIR and the Transport Rule. By this method, the EPA has identified those areas with monitors to be considered “nonattainment receptors” or “maintenance receptors” for evaluating whether the emissions from sources in another state could significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular area.
The EPA reviewed the Washington 2006 PM
Based on the analysis in our TSD, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM
The EPA reviewed the Washington 2006 PM
As detailed in the TSD, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from sources in Washington do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
The EPA is proposing to find that Washington has adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM
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
• 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) 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 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except for as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to EPA by the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, documenting that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress to achieve visibility goals by 2018. The Kansas SIP revision addressed the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally designated areas in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in Kansas. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' determination that the existing RH SIP is adequate to meet the visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0299, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Stephen Krabbe, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7991, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is proposing to approve the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's (KDHE) determination that the existing Kansas RH SIP is adequate to achive the established Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for Class I areas affected by Kansas sources, and therefore requires no substantive revision at this time. EPA's proposed approval is based on the Kansas State Implementation Plan Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of NAAQS for Regional Haze (2014 Progress Report) (“Progress Report or “Report”) submitted by KDHE to EPA on March 10, 2015, that addresses 51.308(g) and (h) of the RHR. The Progress Report demonstrates that the emission control measures in the existing RH SIP are sufficient to enable other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from sources in Kansas to meet all established RPGs for 2018. We are also proposing to find that Kansas fulfilled the requirements in 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity to consult on the RH SIP revision, describe how KDHE addressed the FLMs' comments, and provide procedures for continuing consultation.
Regional haze is a visibility impairment produced by many sources and activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine particulates that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light, thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
The RHR uses the deciview as the principle metric for measuring visibility and for the RPGs that serve as interim visibility goals toward meeting the national visibility goal of reaching natural conditions by 2064. A deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithmic function. Deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.
In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA amendmnets of 1977, Congress created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” In accordance with section 169A of the CAA and after consulting with the Departmnet of Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979). In this notice, we refer to mandatory Class I Federal areas as “Class I areas.” Kansas does not have any Class I areas within the state.
With the CAA amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations in 40 CFR 51.308 to integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas.
KDHE submitted its initial RH SIP to EPA on October 26, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018. EPA approved the Kansas RH SIP for the first planning period on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754). The Progress Report from KDHE is the first evaluation of whether the existing Kansas RH SIP is sufficient to enable other states affected by emissions from sources in Kansas to meet the established visibility goals for 2018.
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. In summary,
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. In summary,
A state must document that it provided FLMs with an opportunity for consultation prior to holding a public hearing on an RH SIP or plan revision as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In addition, a state must include a description of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs, and provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs as required in 40 CFR 51.208(i)(3) and (4).
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
This section describes Kansas' Progress Report and EPA's evaluation of the Report in relation to the seven elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and the determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We also review the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) for state and FLM coordination on a plan revision.
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. Kansas evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2009 regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its Progress Report, Kansas summarizes the long-term strategy for emissions reductions of all air pollutants that may affect visibility. The state notes that Nitrogen Oxides (NO
EPA proposes to find that Kansas' analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for reasons discussed above.
40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP and Progress Report, Kansas focuses its assessment on NO
EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The state provides actual emissions reductions of NO
Given the large NO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: current visibility conditions; the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
Kansas does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries, and as this section pertains only to states containing Class I areas, therefore, no further discussion is necessary. However, Kansas noted in its Progress Report that it is beneficial to have a record of visibility conditions at the Class I areas that are most affected by Kansas sources. The state analyzed four Class I areas, with a focus on the Wichita Mountains Wilderness area (the nearest Class I area to Kansas and most impacted by Kansas sources). The state compared the slope of the glide path of
EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, Kansas presents data from a statewide emissions inventory developed for the year 2002 and compares this data to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2011 version 1 (dated September 30, 2013), or simply the 2011 NEIv1. For both the 2002 dataset and the 2011 NEIv1 data, pollutants inventoried include NO
While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once equality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can select. Kansas tracked changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants using the 2011 NEIv1, which was the most recent updated inventory of actual emissions for the state at the time that it developed the progress report SIP. EPA believes that Kansas's use of the five-year period from 2009 to 2013 reflects an accurate picture of the actual emissions realized between 2002-2013, and as in many cases, Kansas had already reached or surpassed their 2018 goals by 2013. EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
In its Progress Report, Kansas addresses the changes in anthropogenic emissions between 2009 and 2013 throughout the Midwest, especially due to sources installing controls to comply with present and near-future air quality standards (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule and the Clean Air Interstate Rule). Kansas noted that there have been significant reductions among anthropogenic emissions source categories, especially EGU's, with decreases in SO
Kansas demonstrated that there are no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by Kansas and bordering state sources. The state referenced its analyses in the progress report SIP identifying an overall downward trend in these emissions from 2009 to 2013 in Kansas. Further, the progress report SIP shows that Kansas is on track to meeting its 2018 emissions projections.
EPA proposes to find that Kansas has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5).
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable Kansas, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. In its Progress Report, Kansas states that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable Kansas and other neighboring states to meet all of the established RPGs and no further revision to the initial Kansas Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time. To support this conclusion, Kansas notes that anthropogenic emissions of NO
EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective. Kansas referenced the improving visibility trends at affected Class I areas and the downward emissions trends in the state, with a focus on NO
40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, Kansas summarizes the existing IMPROVE monitoring network and its intended continued reliance on IMPROVE for visibility planning. Kansas operates two IMPROVE Protocol sampling sites, one at Cedar Bluff State Park in Trego County and the other at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in the Flint Hills region of eastern Kansas. Kansas has updated its monitoring plan annually and will consider the need to operate two IMPROVE sites with increasingly constrained finances.
EPA proposes to conclude that Kansas has adequately addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: (1) The action taken by Kansas under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) Kansas's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed determination regarding the state's action.
In its Progress Report, Kansas took the action provided for by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for Kansas' negative declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in section II. A. of this action), including the findings that: NO
Based on these findings, EPA proposes to agree with Kansas' conclusion under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive changes to its regional haze SIP are required at this time.
On November 25, 2014, KDHE provided to the FLMs, a revision to Kansas' SIP reporting on progress made during the first implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas in the state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected by emissions from Kansas's sources. Notification was published in the Kansas Register, regional newspapers, and the KDHE Web site on October 23, 2014. A public hearing was not held because KDHE received no requests for a public hearing and the public comment period ended on November 21, 2014. On March 10, 2015, KDHE submitted the SIP to EPA.
Kansas' Progress Report includes the FLMs comments and KDHE's response to those comments in Appendix I to the Progress Report. In the section 3.8 Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination, KDHE commits to continuing policy discussions with the FLMs.
EPA proposes to find that KDHE has addressed the requirements in 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide FLMs with an opportunity for consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing on the SIP revision; include a description in the SIP revision of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs; and provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs.
EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Kansas SIP, submitted by the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action. This proposed action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 30 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would require persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0390, by one of the following methods:
•
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers (including importers) or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance to a proposed or final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for 30 chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs P-13-793, P-14-72, P-14-89, P-14-90, P-14-91, P-14-92, P-14-158, P-14-159, P-14-161, P-14-162, P-14-163, P-14-173, P-14-175, P-14-176, P-14-177, P-14-178, P-14-179, P-14-180, P-14-181, P-14-182, P-14-183, P-14-184, P-14-185, P-14-186, P-14-187, P-14-188, P-14-190, P-14-191, P-14-192, and P-14-193. These SNURs would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. In accordance with the procedures at § 721.160(c)(3)(i), in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 30 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Public comments and EPA's response to comments on the 30 direct final SNURs subject to PMNs P-13-793, P-14-72, P-14-89, P-14-90, P-14-91, P-14-92, P-14-158, P-14-159, P-14-161, P-14-162, P-14-163, P-14-173, P-14-175, P-14-176, P-14-177, P-14-178, P-14-179, P-14-180, P-14-181, P-14-182, P-14-183, P-14-184, P-14-185, P-14-186, P-14-187, P-14-188, P-14-190, P-14-191, P-14-192, and P-14-193
• Basis for the TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs (
• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VII. for more information).
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this proposed rule.
The regulatory text section of this proposed rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (
For the use described in the PMNs, releases of the substances are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed these values. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding the aforementioned concentrations of concern may result in significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).
For the use described in the PMNs, releases of the substances are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed these values. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding the aforementioned concentrations of concern may result in significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).
For the use described in the PMNs, releases of the substances are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed these values. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding the aforementioned concentrations of concern may result in significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met. For additional discussion on these chemical substances, see Units II. and IV. of this proposed rule.
EPA is proposing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this proposed rule:
• EPA would receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA would be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.
When chemical substances identified in this proposed rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. The identities of 29 of the 30 chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN
Therefore, EPA designates June 10, 2015 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires. If such a person met the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR. Consult the
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, during the development of the direct final rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0390.
This proposed rule would establish SNURs for 30 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this proposed rule have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This proposed rule would not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit IX. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this proposed rule.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this proposed rule does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this proposed rule is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this proposed rule would not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), would not apply to this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its rules to continue the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) on a permanent basis. The NDBEDP is currently a pilot program that supports the distribution of communications devices to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.
Comments are due July 27, 2015 and reply comments are due August 10, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 10-210, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Rosaline Crawford, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at 202-418-2075 or email
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 15-58, Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), adopted on May 21, 2015 and released on May 27, 2015, in CG Docket No. 10-210. The full text of document FCC 15-58 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 15-58 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at
This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Document FCC 15-58 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the
1. In the (
2. Section 105 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) added section 719 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which directed the Commission to establish rules to provide up to $10 million annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010); Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010); 47 U.S.C. 620. In 2011, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot program, with an option to extend it for an additional year.
3. On August 1, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice inviting comment on which rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program should be retained and which should be modified to make the permanent NDBEDP more effective and more efficient.
4. On May 21, 2015, the Commission extended the pilot program for one additional year, until June 30, 2016.
5. In establishing a permanent NDBEDP, the Commission also seeks comment on performance goals for all elements of the program along with performance measures that are clearly linked to each performance goal. Specifically, the Commission proposes the following goals: (1) Ensuring that the program effectively increases access to covered services by the target population; (2) ensuring that the program is administered efficiently; and (3) ensuring that the program is cost-effective. Funds available through the program come from contributions made by telecommunications service providers to the TRS Fund, and the Commission has a responsibility to ensure these funds are spent efficiently and effectively. Ensuring that certified programs use available funds in cost-effective ways maximizes the impact of program funds and helps ensure that as many eligible recipients as possible are able to receive the support they need. The Commission believes that clear performance goals and measures will enable it to determine whether the program is being used for its intended purpose and whether the funding for the program is accomplishing the intended results. To the extent that these proposed goals or other goals that commenters may propose may be in tension with each other, commenters should suggest how the Commission should prioritize or balance them. The Commission invites comment on what performance measures it should adopt to support these proposed goals, and whether it should adopt measures based on the information that certified programs are required to report to the Commission. The Commission also seeks comment on ways to manage and share data to track our progress in meeting these goals. Finally, the Commission proposes to periodically review whether it is making progress in addressing these goals by measuring the specific outcomes.
6. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission certifies one entity per state as the sole authorized entity to participate in the NDBEDP and receive support from the TRS Fund for the distribution of equipment and provision of related services to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Certified programs have primary oversight and responsibility for compliance with program requirements, but may fulfill their responsibilities directly or through collaboration, partnership, or contract with other individuals or entities within or outside of their states or territories. Services related to the distribution of equipment include outreach, assessment, installation, and training. Certified programs also perform administrative functions, including submitting reimbursement claims and reports, and conducting annual audits.
7. The Commission proposes to retain the current structure of the NDBEDP, certifying one entity to be responsible for the administration of the program, distribution of equipment, and provision of related services within each of the states and territories covered by the NDBEDP. The Commission believes that the localized approach that has been in place for almost three years has been successful in meeting the needs of eligible low-income individuals who are deaf-blind and that state entities are more likely to be familiar with their unique demographics and their available resources, and consequently are in a better position to respond to the localized needs of their residents. The Commission also believes that greater efficiencies and expanded capabilities can be achieved through a centralized database for reporting and reimbursement and through greater support for training, discussed further in the
8. Thus far, 10 of the 53 state programs have relinquished their certifications, requiring the Commission to seek replacements in those states. The Commission recognizes that some adjustments have had to be made during the pilot program, a result that was not unexpected given that the NDBEDP is an entirely new program. However, on balance, the Commission believes that the success of NDBEDP, as evidenced by the delivery of equipment and services to thousands of deaf-blind individuals, shows that the system has been working well. To help reduce the incidence of program departures, as discussed further in the
9. For the pilot program, the Bureau selected entities to participate in the NDBEDP that were located within and outside of the states that they served. Currently, of the 53 certified programs, 33 are administered by entities located within the states they serve and 20 are administered by entities located outside those states. For all but three of these 20 programs, the out-of-state entity selected was the sole applicant. The Commission proposes to continue allowing qualified out-of-state entities, in addition to in-state entities, to apply for certification to administer the NDBEDP, in collaboration with individuals or entities within or outside of their states or territories. It believes that this flexible approach assists those states that may not have sufficient resources on their own to provide the services required by the NDBEDP. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any alternatives that would ensure that the NDBEDP is able to serve the residents of each state.
10. The Commission authorized the NDBEDP pilot program to operate in each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, noting that each of these jurisdictions administered an intrastate TRS program. The Commission reached this result because, like the TRS state programs, the NDBEDP certified programs are supported by the TRS Fund. Because residents of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are also eligible to make and receive calls through one or more forms of relay services that are supported by the TRS Fund, the Commission proposes to expand the operation of the NDBEDP to these jurisdictions. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, particularly from interested stakeholders who reside in these three territories, including entities that provide services to deaf-blind individuals.
11. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, the Bureau reviews applications and determines whether to grant NDBEDP certification based on the ability of a program to meet the following qualifications, either directly or in coordination with other programs or entities, as evidenced in the application and any supplemental materials, including letters of recommendation: (i) expertise in the field of deaf-blindness; (ii) the ability to communicate effectively with people who are deaf-blind; (iii) staffing and facilities sufficient to administer the program; (iv) experience with the distribution of specialized customer premises equipment; (v) experience in how to train users on how to set up and use the equipment; and (vi) familiarity with the telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services that will be used with the distributed equipment. The Commission believes that these criteria have been effective in informing the Bureau's selection of qualified entities and proposes to retain these criteria to evaluate an entity's qualifications for certification as a state program. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
12. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how it can supplement these criteria to better ensure that certain certified programs serve the full spectrum of people who are deaf-blind. Should the Commission establish minimum standards for the personnel providing services in these programs? For example, should individuals providing service have certain levels of linguistic competency? The Commission asks commenters to describe any difficulties they have experienced securing equipment or services from their state's certified program resulting from a lack of expertise in deaf-blindness or communications skills, and to be specific in recommending changes that may be necessary in the Commission's certification criteria to reduce these difficulties.
13. The Commission also seeks comment on the addition of certification criteria that address the ability of certified programs to administer a statewide program, the capacity to manage the financial requirements of a state program, expertise in assistive technology, and experience with equipment distribution capabilities. In particular, the Commission proposes to add administrative and financial management experience to the requirements for certification. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Should applicants also be required to demonstrate that they are capable of operating a statewide program or that they follow standard financial principles? To what extent would such requirements strengthen the NDBEDP? For example, would these reduce the likelihood of selected entities relinquishing their certification before completion of their terms? Conversely, would requiring such skills exclude too many otherwise qualified applicants? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other criteria that should be added to ensure the selection of certified entities that will be both responsive to the deaf-blind community's needs and capable of achieving full compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules.
14. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission prohibited certified programs from accepting financial arrangements from a vendor that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment. The Commission continues to believe that such incentives could impede a certified program's ability to provide equipment that fully meets the unique needs of the deaf-blind persons it is serving. In addition to this rule, the Commission also requested that applicants for NDBEDP certification disclose in their initial certification application and thereafter, as necessary, any actual or potential conflicts of interest with manufacturers or providers of equipment that may be distributed under the NDBEDP. The Commission proposes to require such disclosures in applications for initial and continued certification under the permanent NDBEDP. To the extent that financial arrangements in which the applicant is a part create the risk of impeding the applicant's objectivity in the distribution of equipment or compliance with NDBEDP requirements—such as when the applicant is partially or wholly owned by an equipment manufacturer or vendor—the Commission proposes that it reject such applicant for NDBEDP certification. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
15. At present, all NDBEDP programs are certified for the duration of the pilot program. Consistent with the TRS certification rules for state TRS providers, to improve program accountability, and avoid unnecessary administrative burdens that may result from a certification period of two or three years, the Commission proposes that NDBEDP programs be certified for a period of five years. The Commission seeks comment on alternative timeframes other than five years including shorter timeframes, and asks about the pros and cons of opening the window up earlier than every five years.
16. Because the permanent NDBEDP may have some rule modifications, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to require each such entity to demonstrate its ability to meet all of the selection criteria anew, and to affirm its commitment to comply with all Commission rules governing the permanent program. Accordingly, the Commission proposes requiring that each entity certified under the pilot program re-apply for certification or notify the Commission of its intent not to participate under the permanent program within 30 days after the effective date of the permanent rules. The rules will be effective upon notice in the
17. Consistent with the Commission's requirements for TRS providers, the Commission proposes to require each state program, once certified, to report any substantive change to its program within 60 days of when such change occurs. The Commission proposes that substantive changes include those that might bear on the qualifications of the entity to meet the Commission's criteria for certification, such as changes in the entity's ability to distribute equipment across its state or significant changes in its staff and facilities. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the types of substantive changes that should trigger such notice to the Commission. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which this requirement would help to ensure that programs continue to meet the Commission's criteria for certification when substantial changes are made.
18. Finally, the Commission proposes that one year prior to the expiration of each five-year certification period, a certified program intending to stay in the NDBEDP be required to request renewal of its certification by submitting to the Commission an application with sufficient detail to demonstrate its continued ability to meet all criteria required for certification, either directly or in coordination with other programs or entities. This approach is consistent with the TRS certification rules for state TRS providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In addition, the Commission proposes to permit other entities to apply for certification as the sole authorized entity for a state to distribute equipment under the NDBEDP one year prior to the expiration of a certified entity's five-year certification period. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
19. Under the pilot program rules, the Commission may suspend or revoke a certification if it determines that such certification is no longer warranted after notice and opportunity for hearing. The Commission seeks comment on whether, in place of an opportunity for an administrative hearing, there are alternatives that would provide programs an opportunity to be heard, such as a reasonable time to present views or objections to the Commission in writing before suspension or decertification. The Commission's interest in finding an alternative stems from its concern that a requirement for a hearing could unintentionally result in eligible residents being denied equipment pending this administrative action. Would providing a program with reasonable time to present its views and objections to the Commission in writing satisfy due process requirements and enable the Commission to take action without undue delay?
20. The Commission has not initiated any decertification proceedings under the pilot program. When state programs have voluntarily relinquished their certifications, the Bureau has released public notices to invite applications to replace these entities, selected replacements after careful review of the applications received, and released a second public notice announcing the newly-certified entities. In addition to releasing such public notices, should the Commission take other measures to notify consumers in the affected states when a certified entity exits the program and a replacement is selected? For example, should the Commission require the formerly certified entity to notify consumers in their states who received equipment or who have applied to receive equipment about the newly-certified entity? The Commission seeks comment on how best to ensure that consumers are aware when these changes are made to their state NDBEDP programs.
21. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, state programs must submit reimbursement claims to the TRS Fund Administrator and reports to the Commission. Currently, reports from state programs are presented to the Commission with inconsistent formatting, making aggregation of data difficult and inefficient. The Commission proposes that a centralized national database be created to assist state programs in the generation of their reports to the Commission, to enable the submission of those reports electronically to the NDBEDP Administrator, and to allow for the aggregation and analysis of nationwide data on the NDBEDP. To ensure that all of the information collected can be aggregated and analyzed for the effective and efficient operation of the NDBEDP, the Commission further proposes that, if the Commission adopts this approach, all certified programs be required to use the centralized database for their reporting obligations. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Do NDBEDP stakeholders agree that these advantages would accrue from utilizing a centralized database? The Commission also seeks comment generally on the costs and any other benefits or disadvantages that would be associated with both the establishment and maintenance of such a database. Further, the Commission seeks comment on any lessons learned from other experiences setting up databases and whether a centralized database
22. Much of the data needed to generate reimbursement claims is also required to generate the required reports. Because the data overlap, the Commission also proposes that the centralized database be available to assist state programs in generating their reimbursement claims for submission to the TRS Fund Administrator. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would having the centralized database available to generate reimbursement claims lead to faster reimbursement and benefit state programs in other ways? The TRS Fund Administrator is currently able to aggregate reimbursement claim data, even in the absence of a centralized database. For this reason, the Commission proposes to enable and permit, but not require, certified programs to use the centralized database to generate reimbursement claims. Alternatively, would requiring all certified programs to use the centralized database for their claims make the process of aggregating reimbursement claim data more efficient? Could reimbursement claim data be transmitted electronically from the centralized database to the TRS Fund Administrator, along with the necessary supporting documentation? The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of utilizing the centralized database to facilitate the creation of reimbursement claims, as well as the best approach for utilizing this database to ensure the effective and efficient oversight of the permanent NDBEDP.
23. The Commission also seeks comment about the type of data that state programs should be required to input into a centralized database. In order for state programs to generate reimbursement claims under the pilot NDBEDP, they must submit the costs of equipment and related expenses (including maintenance, repairs, warranties, refurbishing, upgrading, and replacing equipment distributed to consumers); assessments; equipment installation and consumer training; loaner equipment; state outreach efforts; and program administration. Should this same data be entered into the database? Are there other types of data that should be populated into the database for the purpose of generating reimbursement claims? Similarly, what data should be input by state programs to the database to effectively generate reports about state program activities? Under the Commission's current rules, state programs must report to the Commission information about equipment recipients and the people attesting that those individuals are deaf-blind; the equipment distributed; the cost, time and other resources allocated to various activities; the amount of time between assessment and equipment delivery; the types of state outreach undertaken; the nature of equipment upgrades; a summary of equipment requests denied and complaints received; and the number of qualified applicants on waiting lists to receive equipment. To the extent that the Commission continues requiring that such data be reported in the permanent NDBEDP, should certified programs be required to input all of this data into the centralized database?
24. Should certain data be excluded from the centralized database, and if so, why? For example, even though the Commission complies with the requirements of the Privacy Act with respect to the protection of personally identifiable information that the Commission receives in connection with the NDBEDP, would it be more appropriate for state programs to maintain records of names and addresses of their equipment recipients, along with the identity of the people who attest that those recipients are deaf-blind, rather than put this information into a centralized location? Should individuals who receive equipment instead be given a unique identifying number, which could be entered into the database in lieu of their names and other personally identifiable information? Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any certified program may be prohibited by state regulation from storing data out of state and whether these prohibitions would prevent the input of the types of data described above—or any other related types of data—into a centralized database. Are there any other reasons that any of the currently certified programs would not be able to comply with requirements for the submission of such data into a centralized system? What are the costs and benefits of gathering the categories of information listed above?
25. The Commission proposes to permit the NDBEDP Administrator and other appropriate FCC staff to search this database and generate reports to analyze nationwide data on the NDBEDP, and seeks comment on this proposal. To what extent should a certified program also be permitted access to the database to execute searches of data that it did not input into the database? For example, if the Commission permits entry of data on deaf-blind individuals receiving equipment, should a certified program be permitted to conduct a search to determine whether the applicant is receiving equipment and services from another state? Similarly, should a certified program be permitted to access the database to determine the types of equipment being distributed by other states or the length of time typically used for assessments and training by other certified programs? The Commission proposes that access to the NDBEDP centralized database be limited to authorized entities, and be permitted only under tightly controlled conditions. To ensure the privacy and confidentiality of financial and other sensitive information about consumers that may be entered into the database, the Commission seeks comment on which entities and under what conditions those entities should be permitted access to the database. The Commission proposes that the database administrator be tasked with establishing procedures, protocols, and other safeguards, such as password protection and encryption, to ensure database access is in fact restricted according to the Commission's guidelines. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, and the extent to which the NDBEDP Administrator should be given some discretion to determine when entities other than the Administrator or FCC staff can access the database.
26. Decisions regarding information to be included in a centralized database used for administration of the program and the individuals who may be granted access to the database can raise questions regarding compliance with Government-wide statutory and regulatory guidance with respect to privacy issues and the use of information technology. Parties commenting on the centralized database should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with Government-wide privacy and information technology statutory and regulatory guidance.
27. The Perkins School for the Blind (Perkins), which provides database services for 32 certified programs, estimated that the cost of establishing and maintaining an NDBEDP centralized database will be between $285,000 and $380,000 annually. The Commission seeks comment on whether this amount of funding will be sufficient to perform the proposed functions of the database, and whether there will be start-up costs that result in higher costs during the first year of the database's operations. If the Commission does not develop its own database for the NDBEDP, the Commission proposes to authorize the Bureau to set aside up to
28. As an alternative to undertaking the development and maintenance of an NDBEDP database using existing staff and resources, the Commission will also consider a variety of approaches to satisfy the program requirements. For example, the Commission could engage another agency with information technology experience to provide administrative support for the program including database development and maintenance through an Interagency agreement. The Commission could also procure the database through a competitive procurement. In addition, the Commission may evaluate whether to modify a contract with an existing contractor to satisfy the program requirements—either through direct performance by the main contractor or a subcontractor. Or the Commission may wish to invite entities, via a public notice, to submit applications for the development and maintenance of a centralized database, from which the Commission would then select a database administrator. The Commission will consider using a combination of any of these in-house, regulatory, or procurement strategies where efficient and lawful to do so.
29. Regardless of the precise mechanism chosen for obtaining a centralized database for the program, the Commission seeks input on the performance goals along with performance measures that should be used for this project. Other issues on which the Commission seeks input include the implementation schedule for the work; budget for the first three years of work related to the development and maintenance of the database; prerequisite experience needed for staff employed in creating and managing a complex database capable of receiving large amounts of data. The Commission also seeks input regarding database query and data mining capabilities; and database design best practices to ensure that certified programs can generate reimbursement claims and submit them electronically to the TRS Fund Administrator using the database. The Commission also seeks input on the report functionality required for the database; and best practices with respect to data management, security, privacy, confidentiality, backup, and accessibility, including compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
30. To participate in the NDBEDP, the CVAA requires that individuals must be “deaf-blind,” as that term is defined in the Helen Keller National Center Act (HKNC Act). 29 U.S.C. 1905(2). The Commission's NDBEDP pilot program rules also direct NDBEDP certified programs to consider an individual's functional abilities with respect to using telecommunications, advanced communications, and Internet access services in various environments when determining whether an individual is “deaf-blind.” The Commission proposes to retain this definition and seeks comment on this proposal.
31. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require that individuals seeking equipment under the NDBEDP must provide disability verification from a professional (
32. To participate in the NDBEDP, the CVAA requires that individuals must be “low income.” The NDBEDP pilot program rules define low-income individuals as having “an income that does not exceed 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG).” 47 CFR 64.610(d)(2). In addition, the Bureau has provided guidance to state programs that defines “income” as all income received by all members of a household, and defines a “household” as any individual or group of individuals who are living together at the same address as one economic unit.
33. The Commission seeks comment on how to define the “low income” threshold for purposes of eligibility in the permanent program. Should it, for example, continue to use a threshold of 400% of the FPG like it did in the pilot program? The Commission is sensitive to concerns about the high cost of medical and disability-related expenses for this population, as well as the high cost of the equipment that these consumers need. In the
34. The Commission notes that, in 2013, the median household income in the United States was $52,250. Can the Commission define a household as “low income” if its income exceeds the median? Should the Commission use the median as a cap on eligibility, or just adopt the median as a threshold? Alternatively, how do other federal programs define “low income” households? For example, the FCC's low-income universal service program (known as Lifeline) defines a household as low income only if it is below 135% of the FPG (or the household qualifies for one of several federal low-income programs). Should the Commission adopt that threshold here? What effect would adjusting the income eligibility threshold have on otherwise-eligible deaf-blind individuals? As the program approaches the maximum funding level each year, what effect would adjusting the income eligibility threshold have on prioritizing scarce resources?
35. The Commission seeks comment on whether “taxable income”—rather than total, gross, or net income—be used to determine eligibility, while retaining the limitation that such income not be greater than 400% of the FPG. For these purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether the term “taxable income” should be defined as gross income minus allowable deductions, as defined by the U.S. Tax Code. In other words, taxable income for the purposes of the NDBEDP would be the amount that is used to compute the amount of tax due. The amount of tax due may be offset further by tax credits, but tax credits do not alter the amount of your taxable income. The Commission seeks comment on how to address non-disability related exemptions or exclusions in the tax code. For example, should otherwise-non-taxable municipal-bond income be included in a household's taxable income for purposes of eligibility? Should mortgage-interest deductions or state-income-tax deductions be included? The Commission asks whether this modification appropriately considers an applicant's disability-related and medical expenses, given that taxable income includes allowable deductions for such expenses for individuals who itemize their deductions. For those individuals who do not itemize deductions, in addition to the basic standard deduction, an additional standard deduction is permitted for individuals who are blind, which may help to ameliorate the burden of additional expenses incurred by such individuals and result in less taxable income. The Commission asks for comment as to whether this would address these cost concerns, without conflicting with statutory limitations and congressional intent, or if there are other proposals that might achieve this goal. The Commission also asks whether this approach will impose any additional administrative burdens on either the certified programs or consumers, and whether those burdens are justified by the benefits of adopting these financial eligibility criteria. The Commission also seeks comment on how other federal programs define income for determining whether a household is “low income” and whether any other federal program uses “taxable income” for that purpose.
36. The Commission also addresses concerns about its use of household income in lieu of personal income to determine income eligibility for the NDBEDP, because the former can result in disqualification of adult applicants who live in multi-person households and other adult applicants who are not dependent financially. The Commission proposes to clarify that multiple adults living together as roommates or in a multi-person home are not an “economic unit” and therefore not a “household” for purposes of determining income eligibility. An “economic unit” consists of all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household. In situations where an adult applicant lives in a multi-person home but does not have access to the financial resources of others, he or she is not “contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses” of the group but instead maintaining financially distinct identities despite a shared living space. In contrast, where an adult applicant is financially dependent on another adult or their finances are intertwined (as with a spouse), the incomes of all members of that household must be considered. The Commission asks for comment on this approach or alternatives to this approach that would be consistent with the congressional mandate requiring the NDBEDP to serve only low-income individuals.
37. The NDBEDP pilot program rules allow automatic income eligibility for individuals enrolled in federal subsidy programs with income thresholds that do not exceed 400% of the FPG. When applicants are not already enrolled in a qualifying low-income program, low-income eligibility must be verified by the certified program using appropriate and reasonable means, for example, by reviewing the individual's most recent income tax return.
38. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should continue permitting individuals enrolled in federal subsidy programs with income thresholds lower than 400% of the FPG to be deemed income eligible for the NDBEDP. The Commission believes that this approach is reasonable and reliable, simplifies the income verification process for applicants and certified programs, and is consistent with the approach adopted for its Universal Service low-income program. Further, the Commission proposes to continue to require certified programs to verify low-income eligibility using appropriate and reasonable means, for example, by reviewing the individual's most recent income tax return, when applicants are not already enrolled in a qualifying low-income program. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether a third-party should determine income eligibility just as the Commission proposes to retain the requirement for a third party to verify an individual's disability. If the Commission decides to use a third party to verify income, it seeks comment on whether this should be done by a state agency, such as during the time of enrollment in other programs, or through another mechanism. The Commission seeks comment on the potential impact on program applicants and the potential costs and benefits of doing so
39. To ensure that the equipment provided will be usable, the Commission proposes to continue, under the permanent NDBEDP, to permit certified programs to require that NDBEDP equipment recipients demonstrate that they have access to the telecommunications, advanced communications, or Internet access services (Internet or phone service) that the equipment is designed to use and make accessible. Considering the unemployment and underemployment challenges of the population sought to be served by the NDBEDP, the Commission also proposes, under the permanent NDBEDP, to prohibit certified programs from imposing employment-related eligibility requirements for individuals to participate in the program. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
40. In the pilot NDBEDP, the Commission granted states considerable flexibility in deciding how best to distribute equipment and provide related services to as many of their eligible residents as possible, given their jurisdiction's demographics and the inherent constraints of NDBEDP funding allocations, qualified personnel, time, and other limited resources. The Commission proposes to continue following this approach because it believes it has been effective in allowing states to address the wide range of variability that exists within and between state populations and resources, as well as the diversity within the population of individuals who are deaf-blind. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Should the Commission take measures to prioritize the use of funding in the event that demand for funding exceeds the $10 million funding limitation? If so, for what purpose and when should priorities be set? For example, should priorities be designed to maximize the number of equipment recipients per year or the number of new equipment recipients per year or both? Should the Commission consider taking measures to target the lowest-income individuals? For example, should the Commission consider lowering the income eligibility threshold? Should the Commission consider establishing caps on the amount of equipment or related services an individual may receive to achieve that goal? The Commission seeks comment on these or other alternatives the Commission should consider to maximize the number of low-income consumers who can receive equipment under the permanent program.
41. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges a need for greater transparency with respect to any unique criteria or priorities used by state programs for the distribution of equipment and related services. The Commission, therefore, proposes that each certified program be required to make public on its Web site, if one is maintained by the certified program, or as part of its other local outreach efforts, a brief narrative description of any criteria or priorities that it uses to distribute equipment, as well as strategies established to ensure the fair distribution of equipment to eligible applicants within its jurisdiction. The Commission seeks comment on whether this proposal would assist consumers to better understand what benefits they may be able to secure from their state programs. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the administrative burdens of such an approach would be outweighed by its benefits.
42. The Commission cautions, however, that strategies to serve eligible applicants in a state must be consistent with the NDBEDP rules. For example, a certified program whose state education department provides deaf-blind students with all of the communications equipment and related services they need may determine that it should focus its NDBEDP resources to meet the needs of low-income deaf-blind adults. The Commission believes this would be consistent with the principle, adopted in the
43. During each year of the pilot program, the Commission has set aside $500,000 of the $10 million available annually for national outreach efforts to promote the NDBEDP. Significant initial funding for outreach was necessary to launch the pilot program, because eligible individuals needed to become informed about the availability of the program before distribution of equipment could take place. Accordingly, in addition to permitting the state programs to use some of their funding for outreach to their communities, the Commission authorized national outreach efforts to supplement those local efforts. The Bureau selected Perkins to conduct this national outreach. This outreach effort by Perkins, in partnership with others, has resulted in an NDBEDP (“iCanConnect”) Web site that promotes the NDBEDP, provides information about and referral to state programs, shares news about the program and personal stories of equipment recipients, and includes an overview of the types of communications equipment the program can provide. The national outreach effort has also resulted in the establishment of an 800 number and a call center for program inquiries and
44. Based on both the extensive efforts of the national outreach program to alert and educate consumers about the availability of NDBEDP equipment through state programs, and the generally high praise for these efforts conveyed by others, the Commission proposes to continue funding for national outreach efforts as part of the permanent program and for the NDBEDP Administrator to oversee these efforts. The Commission will consider a variety of approaches to satisfy the national outreach requirements for the program including using existing Commission staff and resources, engaging another agency with expertise in this area through an Interagency agreement, acquiring these services through a competitive procurement, evaluating whether to modify a contract with an existing contractor to satisfy the program requirements—either through direct performance by the main contractor or a subcontractor. The Commission may also wish to invite entities, via a public notice, to submit applications for the role of national outreach coordinator. The Commission will consider using a combination of any of these in-house, regulatory, or procurement strategies where efficient and lawful to do so. Regardless of the precise approach used to obtain national outreach services, the Commission seeks input on the performance goals along with performance measures that would be helpful in facilitating oversight of national outreach efforts.
45. At the same time, the Commission believes that, because national outreach efforts, combined with state and local outreach efforts conducted by certified programs, have made significant progress in publicizing the NDBEDP, less national outreach may be needed going forward. The Commission therefore proposes to reduce the amount of money spent on national outreach to $250,000 for each of the first three years of the permanent program, and seeks comment on this proposal. Do commenters agree that this reduction in the national outreach allocation is appropriate given the limited amount of annual funding available to the NDBEDP and, if so, would $250,000 per year be an appropriate level of funding? What effect would such a reduction in funds have on the types of national outreach efforts that were made under the pilot program? For example, will this amount of money be sufficient to continue the outreach activities that Perkins identifies as “critical,” including maintenance of the iCanConnect Web site; the 800 number and call center; marketing materials; monthly conference calls; and support to states to gather and promote success stories? How can the Commission ensure that these or other national outreach efforts undertaken under the permanent program are cost effective? Should the Commission conduct an assessment during the third year to determine whether and to what extent to continue such funding support beyond this period? Will two years be sufficient to gather the data necessary to make this determination during the third year? If the Commission takes this approach, it seeks comment on how it should, in the third year, evaluate the efficacy of national outreach efforts for this purpose.
46. The Commission seeks comment on whether national outreach efforts should target specific groups, such as American Sign Language users, non-English language users, and medical and elder service professionals and, if so, why. Would the proposed reduction in funding limit national outreach to these targeted groups? Should other populations be targeted? What specific methods of communication or activities should be used to reach these groups? How can the Commission ensure that outreach reaches eligible consumers who do not specifically identify as deaf-blind? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and to what national outreach should be coordinated with the state program efforts, including the costs and benefits of having to take such measures.
47. Finally, performance goals should be defined for the national outreach program along with performance measures that are clearly linked to each performance goal. Evaluating a program against quantifiable metrics is part of the Commission's normal oversight functions. As such, the Commission seeks input on the data it should collect in order to effectively oversee the outreach efforts. Should the Commission collect data on factors such as increases in the number of program participants, inquiries through the 800 number/call center, referrals through the iCanConnect Web site, consumer applications to state programs, the proportion of consumers in specified groups, such as by age or language spoken, Web site traffic, growth in social channels, and media impressions? If so, at what intervals are reports on such data useful?? What are the costs and benefits of collecting and evaluating this data? Commenters should explain the connection between performance measures proposed and clearly defined program goals.
48. In addition to setting aside $500,000 per year for national outreach during the pilot program, the Commission has required certified programs participating in the pilot program to conduct local outreach to inform state residents about the NDBEDP, and has provided reimbursement for the reasonable costs of this outreach. Given the overwhelming endorsement of such efforts in the record, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should continue to require certified programs participating in the permanent NDBEDP to conduct outreach to state residents, and to reimburse these programs for the reasonable costs of such outreach. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
49. The Commission also seeks comment on the level of funding for state and local outreach that should be considered reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under the permanent NDBEDP. Overall, certified programs spent a combined average of approximately 10% of their total fund allocations on state and local outreach during the second year of the pilot program. Given that outreach activities at the state level have made significant progress in publicizing the NDBEDP, the Commission proposes that such outreach expenditures be capped at 10% of each state's funding allocation during the first two years of the permanent program, after which the Commission proposes that the NDBEDP Administrator be required to reassess this level of funding authorization. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as well as the specific metrics and criteria that should be used to evaluate the success of these outreach efforts, such as the percentage of a state program's funding allocation actually used. How can the Commission ensure that local outreach efforts undertaken under the permanent program have met such metrics, and are cost effective? Are there other criteria, including the criteria proposed above for the assessment of national outreach activities, that can be applied to evaluating the success of state outreach efforts?
50. Finally, in the
51. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission's rules permit reimbursement for the reasonable costs of individualized assessments of a deaf-blind individual's communications needs by qualified assistive technology specialists. Reimbursable assessment costs under the pilot program include the reasonable travel costs of state program staff and contractors who conduct assessments and provide support services (such as qualified interpreters). Individual assessments are needed to ensure an appropriate match between the particular type of technology distributed and the unique accessibility needs of each consumer, given the wide range of abilities and hearing and vision disabilities across the deaf-blind population. Further, the Commission continues to believe that reimbursement of the reasonable costs of travel by program staff and contractors to conduct assessments of individuals located in rural or remote areas is necessary to achieve the goal of accessible communications under the CVAA. The Commission tentatively concludes that the permanent NDBEDP should continue to permit reimbursement for these assessment and related travel costs, and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission asks commenters who do not believe that such funding support should be continued to explain why it should be discontinued. Further, the Commission asks how it can ensure that conducting assessments under the permanent program is cost effective or how it can improve the cost effectiveness of such assessments. The Commission also seeks comment on any other matters related to conducting individualized assessments under the NDBEDP.
52. The Commission presently does not allow reimbursement for the costs of deaf-blind consumers traveling to the assessor's location. The record shows that, in some instances, it would be preferable for consumers to travel to a location away from their homes, such as to the state program's office, to have their needs assessed before receiving equipment. The Commission proposes to allow but not require certified programs to pay for and request reimbursement for the reasonable costs of in-state travel for consumers (and their support service providers, if needed) when doing so would be more efficient and effective than conducting the assessment in the consumer's home. Would allowing such coverage benefit consumers, for example, by making a wideessors or support services? Should there be a cap on the amount a state program can spend on assessment-related cr array of communication devices available for such assessments? To what extent would allowing these costs provide consumers with access to more skilled assonsumer travel? To what extent should the Commission's rules define the permissible costs that would be considered reasonable for such travel, and what costs should be considered “reasonable”? Are there other federal programs that are instructive with respect to addressing similar travel costs? The Commission assumes that most travel could occur from the consumer's location to the NDBEDP center and back to the consumer's location within a single day, given that travel is within a single state, and seeks comment on whether this assumption is correct. For example, what is the average distance and duration for consumers to travel to the assessment location? How likely is it that a consumer would need overnight lodging for the purpose of completing such assessment, and if such lodging is necessary, should this be covered by NDBEDP funds? To what extent have consumers traveled to another location for the purpose of obtaining assessments at their own expense during the pilot program, and to what extent are they likely to need such travel in the future? Are certified programs already paying for consumer travel, without seeking reimbursement for those costs? Are state programs able to estimate projected costs for future consumer travel if the Commission's proposal to permit these costs is adopted? Are any of these expenses able to be reimbursed by other federal programs?
53. Although the Commission believes that reimbursing programs for the reasonable costs of consumer travel and support service providers, when needed and appropriate, can benefit both consumers and certified programs, given the limited NDBEDP funding available to each certified program, the Commission is hesitant to allow such compensation without the careful review and prior approval of each program pursuant to clearly defined guidelines. The Commission therefore proposes that a consumer's travel costs be reimbursed only if those costs are first pre-approved by the certified program, which should occur only after a determination by the program that the reasonable costs of this travel would be more efficient and effective than having the assessor travel to the consumer. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on specific guidelines certified programs should follow or factors they should consider to make such determinations. For example, how should certified programs weigh possible benefits to a consumer that travels to receive an assessment (
54. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that a consumer may need to travel out-of-state for an assessment, and the number of consumers who already do so or are likely to do so, if reimbursement were allowed. Because the costs of traveling greater distances are likely to be higher than for in-state travel, should certified
55. The NDBEDP provides support for the distribution of specialized customer premises equipment needed to make telecommunications services, Internet access service, and advanced communications, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services accessible to people who are deaf-blind. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission reimburses certified programs for the reasonable cost of equipment, which may be hardware, software, or applications, separate or in combination, mainstream or specialized, as long as it meets the needs of the deaf-blind individual to achieve access to NDBEDP covered services. Certified programs may not impose restrictions on the types of communications technology that a recipient may receive, disable features or functions needed to access covered services, or accept financial arrangements from a vendor that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment. Certified programs may lend or transfer ownership of the distributed equipment to eligible recipients, but must prohibit recipients from transferring equipment received under the NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise. Certified programs are permitted to distribute multiple pieces of equipment to eligible consumers, as needed. Equipment-related expenses, including maintenance, repairs, warranties, returns, maintaining an inventory of loaner equipment, as well as refurbishing, upgrading, and replacing equipment distributed to consumers are also reimbursable. When a recipient relocates to another state, certified programs must permit the transfer of the recipient's account and any control of the distributed equipment to the new state's certified program. The Commission did not establish equipment or funding caps for individual recipients during the pilot program. Rather, certified programs may distribute more than one device to an individual, within the constraints of the state's annual funding allocation and the desire to make communications accessible for as many individuals who are deaf-blind as possible.
56. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should retain all of the equipment distribution provisions of the NDBEDP pilot program noted above. The Commission believes that placing restrictions on the number of devices that each recipient should be permitted to receive or the frequency with which they should be allows to receive them at this time would be inconsistent with the goal of the program to ensure access to communications services to all eligible low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. The better approach, the Commission believes, is to continue allowing the flexibility inherent in the existing provisions, which permits each certified program to determine how many pieces of equipment to provide and with what frequency, to meet the varied needs of the individuals in their communities. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. The commission also seeks comment on how it can ensure that the purchase of equipment under the permanent program is cost effective or how it can improve the cost effectiveness of such equipment purchases. The Commission further invites comment on whether certified programs should be required to reassess the communications needs of an equipment recipient when new issues, such as developmental, medical, or other changes, result in equipment no longer meeting the recipient's needs. The Commission also seeks comment on alternatives that might address these concerns.
57. The record reflects a desire that the centralized database contain a functionality that lists and frequently updates types of compensable equipment, and that allows certified programs, consumers, and industry to post suggestions for new equipment for consideration and evaluation, as well as comments, information, instructions or suggestions regarding existing equipment. The Commission notes that the database proposed in the
58. The Commission cautions, however, that the appearance of a specific piece of equipment in the centralized database or on the iCanConnect Web site will not automatically make it eligible for reimbursement for all applicants. Rather, because equipment distribution determinations must be made based on individual case-by-case assessments, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify specific types of equipment that will be reimbursable for all eligible applicants. Indeed, the same piece of equipment may be suitable for one individual, yet inappropriate for another. Thus, the Commission proposes that equipment reports produced by the centralized database, as well as equipment listings on the iCanConnect Web site, include a clear and conspicuous notice that the selection of and reimbursement for any piece of equipment distributed under the NDBEDP must be based on an individual case-by-case assessment and consistent with the NDBEDP rules. Consistent with this principle, under the pilot program, when it is not obvious that the equipment can be or is commonly used by individuals who are
59. Finally, the Commission asks how certified programs can ensure that the individuals they serve do not sell or otherwise transfer the equipment they receive under the NDBEDP to another person. The Commission proposes that equipment recipients be required to execute a standard attestation that they will not sell, give, lend, or transfer their interest in any equipment they receive under this program. For this purpose, and to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of each consumer's application for equipment, the Commission seeks comment on the following uniform attestation that it proposes to be included on all consumer application forms. Commenters who believe alternate attestation language is appropriate should explain why such alternatives are appropriate in lieu of this proposal:
I certify that all information provided on this application, including information about my disability and income eligibility to receive equipment, is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Program officials have my permission to verify the information provided. If I am eligible for services, I agree to use these services solely for the purposes intended. I further understand that I may not sell, give, lend, or transfer interest in any equipment provided to me. Falsification of any records or failure to comply with these provisions will result in immediate termination of service. In addition, I understand that if I purposely provide false information I may be subject to legal action. I certify that I have read, understand, and accept all conditions associated with iCanConnect, the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program.
60. Should programs be required to verify on a regular basis that the equipment continues to reside in the recipient's possession? Would a requirement for such verification be burdensome or impractical, given the rapid evolution of technology, which frequently requires equipment to be upgraded or replaced on a regular basis, such as every few years?
61. The NDBEDP pilot program permits reimbursement for the reasonable costs of installing NDBEDP distributed equipment, individualized consumer training on how to use such equipment, and the reasonable travel costs of trainers and support services. Having equipment set-up and providing training in person are essential to ensuring that deaf-blind individuals effectively benefit from the NDBEDP and to prevent the underutilization or abandonment of equipment. Given its critical importance to the success of the NDBEDP and the recognition that the amount of time it takes to train individuals who are deaf-blind on new communications equipment depends on a variety of factors, including a wide range of capabilities and experiences with communications technologies, the Commission refrained from establishing caps on such training. For these same reasons, the Commission concluded that reimbursable installation and training costs under the pilot program would include the reasonable travel costs of trainers and individuals providing support services, such as qualified interpreters. The Commission proposes to continue to permit reimbursement for the reasonable costs of equipment installation, consumer training, and travel by trainers and support services, such as qualified interpreters. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to continue providing compensation for these costs. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can ensure that installation and training conducted under the permanent program is cost effective or how it can improve the cost effectiveness of such installation and training.
62. The Commission did not permit reimbursement under the pilot program for the costs of having consumers travel to receive training. The record shows, however, that, in some instances, it is preferable for consumers to travel to a location away from their homes to get their equipment installed or to receive training. The Commission proposes that a consumer's travel costs be reimbursed only if those costs are first pre-approved by the consumer's certified program, which should occur only after a determination by the program that the reasonable costs of this travel would be more efficient and effective than in-home installation and training. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, as well as a proposal that pre-approval by the NDBEDP Administrator not be required but may be requested. The Commission also seeks comment on specific guidelines certified programs should follow or factors they should consider to make such determinations. For example, how should certified programs weigh possible benefits to a consumer that travels to receive training, against a comparison of program personnel travel versus consumer travel costs? Would allowing reimbursement for consumer travel benefit consumers, for example, by increasing training opportunities for consumers? To what extent would allowing these costs provide consumers with access to more skilled trainers or support services? Should there be a cap on the amount a state program can spend on training-related consumer travel? To what extent should the Commission's rules define the permissible costs that would be considered reasonable for such travel, and what costs should be considered “reasonable”? Are there other federal programs that are instructive with respect to addressing similar travel costs? Would consumers need to travel on more than one day for training and, if so, why? What is the average distance and duration for consumers to travel to the training location? To the extent that training needs to occur over a series of days, or the travel distance is considerable (even within the same state), should the costs of lodging and or meals be covered, or just the costs of transportation? The Commission requests certified programs to share any information they may have on the extent to which consumers have traveled to another location at their own expense, the extent to which state programs presently reimburse consumers for these costs, and to what extent they expect consumers are likely to need such travel in the future. Are state programs able to estimate projected costs for future consumer travel if the Commission's proposal to permit these costs is adopted? Are any of these expenses able to be reimbursed by other federal programs? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other matters related to the need for and appropriateness of reimbursing state programs for consumers' travel expenses relating to installation and training.
63. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that a consumer may need to travel out-of-state for training, and the number of consumers who already do so or would do so, if reimbursement were allowed. Because the costs of traveling greater distances are likely to be higher than for in-state travel, should certified programs be required to seek pre-approval from the
64. In the
65. One of the purposes of the CVAA is to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment. To give full effect and meaning to this purpose, and in particular to the mandate contained in section 105 of the CVAA and section 719 of the Communications Act, directing the Commission to address the unmet communications access needs of persons who are deaf-blind through a national equipment distribution program, the Commission has allowed some of the funding support provided for this program to be used for assessments, equipment installation, and consumer training. The Commission found their financial support necessary because they are essential to the efficient and effective distribution of equipment for use by people who are deaf-blind. Similarly, because equipment training cannot be achieved in the absence of qualified personnel to conduct such training, it would appear that the Commission can use its authority to financially support programs that distribute specialized customer premises equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind by mitigating the current shortage of qualified training personnel through the allocation of funding for this purpose. The Commission seeks comment on the use of its authority under section 719 of the Communications Act for such purpose. Is such financial support necessary to give full effect and meaning to the CVAA's objectives and to achieve the purpose of section 719?
66. During the pilot program, the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults (HKNC) established a train-the-trainer program using a grant from a private foundation, which some certified programs are using, but others cannot afford. Are additional funds available from public or private sources other than the NDBEDP for this purpose? Besides HKNC, are any other entities offering train-the-trainer programs to more than one certified program? Do such entities provide individual training, group training, and distance training through online resources, or other forms of training? Approximately how often do these programs provide training seminars or sessions? What is the cost to certified programs to attend training sessions or access training materials?
67. The Commission believes $250,000 to be reasonable and sufficient for train-the-trainer programs, and seeks comment on whether this amount is appropriate as an initial step. The Commission proposes addressing concerns about funding train-the-trainer activities to the detriment of funding for the distribution of equipment and provision of related services by re-allocating a portion of funding previously used for national outreach, discussed above in the
68. The Commission seeks comment on whether providing funding support for the first three years of the permanent program will be sufficient to accomplish the desired objectives. If the Commission moves forward with this approach, should it conduct an assessment during the third year to determine whether and to what extent to continue such funding support beyond this period? Will two years be sufficient to gather the data necessary to make this determination during the third year? If the Commission takes this approach, it seeks comment on how it should, in the third year, evaluate the efficacy of train-the-trainer programs for this purpose.
69.
70.
71. If the Commission establishes or coordinates a train-the-trainer program at the national level, the Commission will consider a variety of approaches to satisfy the requirements for the program including using existing Commission staff and resources, engaging another agency with expertise in this area through an Interagency agreement, acquiring these services through a competitive procurement, evaluating whether to modify a contract with an existing contractor to satisfy the program requirements—either through direct performance by the main contractor or a subcontractor. The Commission may also wish to invite entities, via a public notice, to submit applications to establish or coordinate a train-the-trainer program. The Commission will consider using a combination of any of these in-house, regulatory, or procurement strategies where efficient and lawful to do.
72. If the Commission establishes or coordinates a train-the-trainer program, what are the essential criteria for the staff and/or entity selected to perform the role? HKNC recommends that the following criteria are essential: Experience with the target population; familiarity with Braille and Braille devices; familiarity with emerging communications technologies and end user equipment; staff who are skilled in American Sign Language as well as other communication methodologies; and a track record of multi-modal training and ability to maintain pace with the technology? Are these criteria appropriate and sufficient to make such selection? If not, what other criteria should the Commission use?
73. Regardless of whether the Commission supports a nationally coordinated train-the-trainer program or allocates funds to certified programs for train-the-trainer activities, or some combination of both, should the Commission require or permit training in a variety of formats, such as individual training, group training, and distance training through online resources? Should NDBEDP funding be used for that purpose? Should national or state entities providing training be required to establish a system for evaluating the outcomes of the training? It appears that train-the-trainer activities could ultimately lead to the increased employment of individuals with disabilities. Are there actions that the Commission could take to promote such efforts? Should the Commission encourage either national or state entities to train individuals who are deaf-blind, including NDBEDP equipment recipients, as trainers? The Commission invites comments on how best to establish and support train-the-trainer activities for the permanent NDBEDP.
74. In the
75. In addition, the Commission takes this opportunity to remind program participants and commenters that TRS funds, are permanent and indefinite appropriations and, like other appropriated funds, come with certain restrictions. While some of these restrictions are longstanding and codified in the United States Code, other restrictions on use of appropriated funds (including permanent indefinite appropriations) may be included in annual appropriation acts. Parties commenting on the proposals in this
76. Under the pilot program, the Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to reduce, raise, or reallocate funding allocations to any certified program as it deemed necessary and appropriate. During the first year of the pilot program, almost 70% of the $10 million available to support the NDBEDP was used by certified programs and for national outreach. Approximately 90% of the $10 million annual allocation was used during the second year of the pilot program. During each of the first two years of the pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator reviewed funding data as it became available and worked with certified programs and the Bureau to reallocate funding between state programs when necessary to maximize the use of available funding.
77. During the first year of the pilot program, few entities reached or exceeded their annual allocation of funds. Only three entities requested and received additional funds. In the first half of the second year of the pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator approved several requests for reallocations of funds from one certified entity to another (“voluntary” reallocations). During the third quarter of the second year, after notice, the NDBEDP Administrator reduced the allocations of certified programs that had not used at least half of their annual allocation and reallocated those funds to satisfy requests from certified programs that reached or exceeded their annual allocations (“involuntary” reallocations). Specifically, the formula currently used by the NDBEDP Administrator reduces by 50% the allocations of programs that have spent less than 25% during the first half of the year, and reduces by 25% the allocations of programs that have spent more than 25% but less than 50% during the first half of the year. Certified programs have an opportunity to request that the NDBEDP Administrator consider increasing or reducing the proposed change in allocation. The Commission seeks comment on this method and formula, or any alternative methods or formulas for making involuntary reallocations in the permanent NDBEDP. Commenters that suggest alternatives should explain how these would lead to effective results for the intended community and how such
78. Approximately one month after the first half of the Fund year ends, the Bureau has the requisite data from all certified programs to determine whether and to what extent involuntary funding reallocations may be appropriate. This is because, as discussed further the
79. When it established the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission considered two funding mechanisms: (1) Distributing funds to certified programs at the start of each Fund year and letting the programs use the funds as they saw fit; or (2) reimbursing programs up to each state's allocation for the equipment they distribute. The Commission concluded that the reimbursement approach was more appropriate both because it would provide incentives for certified programs to actively locate eligible participants and would achieve greater accountability and protection against fraud, waste, and abuse. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission reimburses programs for the costs incurred for authorized equipment and related services, up to each certified program's initial or adjusted allocation. Each reimbursement claim must be accompanied by a declaration made under penalty of perjury attesting to the truth and accuracy of the submission. Certified programs may elect to seek reimbursement monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually.
80. The Commission proposes to continue using the present reimbursement mechanism to fund equipment distribution and related services under the permanent NDBEDP because a system that advances funds presents challenges relating to returning or reallocating unspent funds and would result in more complicated recordkeeping, and a reimbursement mechanism is more likely to keep certified programs accountable and deter fraud, waste, and abuse. The Commission further proposes that the current requirement for certified programs to support their reimbursement claims with documentation, a reasonably detailed explanation of incurred costs, and a declaration be carried into the permanent program. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and other guidelines that may be needed with respect to the submission and processing of reimbursement claims to ensure that certified programs operate in a cost-efficient manner and maintain the financial integrity of the program. The record reflects that there was some frustration with delays in the processing of reimbursement claims at the start of the pilot program, but the timeliness of payments has since improved. The Commission does not propose a specific period by which reimbursement claims must be paid, but notes that, when a claim is submitted with sufficient documentation and does not require further clarification, it expects the Bureau and the TRS Fund Administrator to be able to process that claim within 30 days, and claims requiring additional documentation or clarification generally will be processed within 60 days. As discussed in the
81. To continue meeting the individualized needs of these programs, the Commission proposes to continue allowing certified entities to elect, upon certification and at the beginning of each Fund year, whether to submit claims on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis and to require submission within 30 days after each elected period. The TRS Fund Administrator recommends that certified programs be required to submit monthly claims and to request a waiver to submit claims less frequently. Only 10 programs have elected to submit claims monthly, with the other 43 programs opting for quarterly or semi-annual schedules. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that these 43 programs have not elected to submit claims on a monthly basis and whether all programs should be required to begin filing monthly, for example, for the sake of program consistency. Alternatively, is each certified program best suited to determine the frequency with which it needs to be reimbursed? The Commission seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the current practice or whether the Commission should revise its rules to require all programs to adhere to a single schedule for filing reimbursement claims. In particular the Commission asks parties to comment on the extent to which a requirement to follow a single filing schedule would be more efficient or impose difficulties on programs with limited resources.
82. Under the Commission's rules for the NDBEDP pilot program, certified programs may be compensated for administrative costs up to 15% of their total reimbursable costs (
83. Given the general accomplishments of the 53 certified programs in distributing communications equipment to their deaf-blind residents, the Commission is no longer concerned that basing the cap of administrative costs on the full funding allocation for each certified program will eliminate the necessary incentives to carry out the NDBEDP's objectives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to reimburse administrative costs as they are incurred and claimed, based on the annual allocation rather than the amount of reimbursable costs, thereby eliminating the need for the TRS Fund Administrator to “bank” unearned
84. The Commission further acknowledges that some programs have reported operating at a loss as a result of the 15% cap on administrative expenses, and recognizes that this could potentially act as a disincentive to participate in the NDBEDP. During the second year of the pilot program, certified programs that exceeded the 15% cap had about 3% more administrative costs than were allowed by the cap. To respond to these concerns, rather than raise the cap by the 3% needed to cover those overages, the Commission believes that its proposal to create a centralized database for certified programs to generate reports and reimbursement claims may alleviate the administrative burdens for certified programs operating in the permanent NDBEDP. If adopted, certified programs that have been incurring costs associated with the use of a database, such as the Perkins database discussed in the
85. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs to report certain information to the Commission in an electronic format every six months. The report must include, among other things, information about NDBEDP equipment recipients; distributed equipment; the cost, time and other resources allocated to outreach activities, assessment, equipment installation and training, and for equipment maintenance, repair, refurbishment, and upgrades; equipment requests that have been rejected; complaints; and waiting lists. Each report must be accompanied by a declaration made under penalty of perjury attesting to the truth and accuracy of the submission. In the
86. The Commission proposes to retain the six-month reporting requirement. During the pilot program, it has been useful for the Commission to gather the required information to effectively evaluate NDBEDP operations. The Commission believes that continuing to receive this data will be useful to the permanent program as well, because this will allow the Commission to ensure that NDBEDP certified programs continue to operate efficiently and that they effectively meet consumer needs. As discussed in the
87. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should modify the information these reports should include. In particular, are there differences in the pilot and permanent programs that should cause the Commission to change the nature of the data required by these reporting obligations? The Commission also seeks comment on ways that the provision of data required for reimbursement claims and reporting requirements can be streamlined through the design of a centralized database or by other means. For example, should state programs be permitted to submit reports at the same frequency as reimbursement claims to streamline these requirements further? What are the advantages or disadvantages of allowing certified programs to submit reimbursement claims and reports on a monthly, quarterly, or biannual basis? Should the reporting period be the same for all certified programs to ensure consistency of data? If so, what should that period be? Alternatively, now that the Commission is transitioning the NDBEDP to a permanent program, would it serve the program just as well if submission of the reports were required annually instead of every six months?
88. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission requires certified programs to submit a certification with each report executed by “the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or other senior executive of the certified program, such as a director or manager, with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the report,” as follows:
I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an officer of the above-named reporting entity and that I have examined the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been provided and all statements of fact are true and an accurate statement of the affairs of the above-named certified program.
89. Consistent with the Commission's Universal Service low-income program rules, and to clarify what “affairs” means in this context, the Commission propose to amend the certification as follows:
I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that the entity has policies and procedures in place to ensure that recipients satisfy the NDBEDP eligibility requirements, that the entity is in compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules, that I have examined the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been provided, and all statements of fact are true and an accurate statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.
90. Similarly, the Commission proposes to amend the certification required with reimbursement claims to clarify that the “affairs” of the certified program means the “business activities conducted pursuant to the NDBEDP” by the certified program. The Commission seeks feedback on this and any other matters pertaining to the reporting obligations not discussed above, including the costs and benefits of retaining these requirements.
91. During the pilot program, certified programs have been required to engage an independent auditor to perform annual audits designed to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
92. Further, the Commission proposes to clarify that NDBEDP certified programs are not required to conduct their annual audits using a more rigorous audit standard, such as a forensic standard, specifically designed to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to affirm the following guidance provided by the Bureau in November 2012 to certified programs regarding their annual audit requirement:
For purposes of complying with the NDBEDP audit rule, an independent auditor must conduct a program audit that includes a traditional financial statement audit, as well as an audit of compliance with the NDBEDP rules that have a direct and material impact on NDBEDP expenditures and a review of internal controls established to ensure compliance with the NDBEDP rules.
Compliance areas to be audited include, but are not limited to, allowable costs, participant eligibility, and reporting. The audit report must describe any exceptions found, such as unallowable costs, lack of participant eligibility documentation, and missing reports. The report also must include the certified program's view as to whether each compliance exception is material and whether any internal control deficiencies are material.
If the auditor finds evidence of fraud, waste, or abuse, the auditor must take appropriate steps to discuss it with the certified program management and the FCC and report the auditor's observations as required under professional auditing standards. This program audit standard is comparable to that required for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 audits. The Commission believes that such audits of NDBEDP certified programs, conducted annually by an independent auditor, will detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, which will satisfy the NDBEDP audit rule.
93. Commenters note that the Commission should provide guidance with respect to whether certified programs must comply with OMB Circular A-133 audit requirements. Because the program audit criteria described above are similar to that of an OMB Circular A-133 audit, the Commission proposes to require that audits under the permanent NDBEDP be performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. The Commission invites comment on this proposal. Commenters that disagree with this proposal are asked to explain why.
94. In addition, the Commission proposes to continue to require each program to submit to an audit at any time deemed necessary by the Commission or its delegated authorities. This proposal is consistent with the Commission's TRS rules. This approach could also be implemented by performing audits either as needed or on a regular basis at intervals longer that one year. A full audit of an NDBEDP certified entity, as directed by the Commission or a delegated authority may be appropriate, for example, to obtain financial information needed for the FCC's consolidated annual financial audit, which also includes the financial results for the TRS Fund. As another example, a full audit may also be appropriate when the TRS Fund Administrator and the NDBEDP Administrator agree that reimbursement claims submitted by a certified program contain a pattern of errors or indicia reflecting a lack of accountability, fraud, waste, or abuse. The Commission further proposes that any program that fails to fully cooperate in such audits, for example, by failing to provide documentation necessary for verification upon reasonable request, be subject to an automatic suspension of NDBEDP payments until sufficient documentation is provided. The Commission believes that this automatic suspension policy, which is currently applied to the TRS program, would promote transparency and accountability in the compensation process. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of adopting this approach.
95. To further prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and ensure compliance with the NDBEDP rules, the Commission proposes to retain the provision in the pilot program rules requiring certified programs to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules. Because the Commission may choose to initiate an investigation at its discretion and on its own motion, the Commission proposes to eliminate the example that appears in the pilot program rules from the permanent NDBEDP rules that suggests that “evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with those rules” is a prerequisite to such an investigation. 47 CFR 64.610(j)(3). The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
96. Finally, to further prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, the Commission proposes to retain the whistleblower protections in the NDBEDP rules. Those protections require certified programs to permit individuals to disclose to appropriate officials, without reprisal, known or suspected violations of the Commission's rules or any other activity the individual believes to be unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive, or that could result in the improper distribution of equipment, provision of services, or billing to the TRS Fund. Certified programs must include these whistleblower protections with the information they provide about the program in any employee handbooks or manuals, on their Web sites, and in other appropriate publications. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
97. As part of the pilot program, the Commission adopted a rule requiring all certified programs to retain all records associated with the distribution of equipment and provision of related services under the pilot program for two years following the termination of the pilot program, without specifying the format in which they must be retained, but with the goal of promoting greater transparency and accountability. Consistent with the Commission's TRS rules, the Commission proposes to require certified programs to retain all records associated with the distribution of equipment and provision of related services under the permanent program for a minimum of five years. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether such records should be retained for a longer or shorter period of time. Certified programs need such records to support their reimbursement claims, to generate reports required to be filed with the Commission, and to comply with audit requirements. The Commission has also found that such records are needed for responding to inquiries and complaints. As such, and consistent with the Commission's Universal Service low-income program rules and the NDBEDP pilot program rules, the Commission also proposes that certified programs document compliance with all Commission requirements governing the NDBEDP and provide this documentation to the Commission upon request. Record retention is also necessary in the event that questions arise about a program's compliance with NDBEDP rules or the propriety of requests for payment. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
98. The Commission believes that records also are needed to transfer information to another certified program when an eligible consumer moves to another state or to transfer information to a newly-certified program when a certified entity either relinquishes its certification or decides not to seek re-certification. Should the Commission's rules require NDBEDP applications to include a release that would permit disclosure of information about the applicant by the certified program, as needed, to minimize any interruption in service if such individual moves to another state or a new entity takes over certification for that individual's state? Alternatively, if the Commission adopts a centralized database for processing reimbursement claims or reporting purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether it will continue to be necessary for certified programs to retain a copy of these records. If so, which records should be retained by certified programs and for what period of time? Should the Commission specify that records must be retained in paper or electronic format, or should it allow each certified program to decide the format in which to retain its records? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other matters related to the retention of records under the permanent program.
99. The Bureau designated an NDBEDP Administrator, who has been responsible for, among other things, reviewing applications from entities for certification to receive NDBEDP funding, allocating NDBEDP funding, reviewing reimbursement claims, maintaining the NDBEDP Web site, resolving stakeholder issues, and serving as the Commission point of contact for the NDBEDP. The NDBEDP Administrator has worked with the current TRS Fund Administrator, who has been responsible for, among other things, reviewing cost submissions and releasing funds under the NDBEDP for distributed equipment and related services, including outreach efforts.
100. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Bureau should continue to implement and administer the permanent NDBEDP, and to retain authority over NDBEDP policy matters and the functions of the NDBEDP Administrator. For example, the Bureau may task the NDBEDP Administrator with oversight of the development and maintenance of a centralized database, as well as the support for train-the-trainer programs that may be authorized under the Commission's final rules in this proceeding. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the administration of the NDBEDP should be consolidated with the administration of the other TRS programs in order to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings. The Commission recognizes that after adoption of rules establishing the pilot program in 2011, in 2013, the Commission delegated financial oversight of the TRS Fund to the Office of Managing Director (OMD). Thus, the Commission also seeks comment on ensuring that administration of the permanent NDBEDP be conducted in a manner that ensures the Bureau's continued oversight over policy matters relating to the program while at the same time ensuring that the Commission satisfies its financial management responsibilities for the TRS program as a whole, complies with all Government-wide financial requirements, and achieves efficiencies and savings in the administrative costs of the NDBEDP.
101. For the permanent NDBEDP, like other TRS programs, financial oversight must be consistent with TRS orders, rules, and policies, and that OMD should consult with the Bureau on issues that potentially could impact the availability, provision, and continuity of services to consumers. Consistent with such direction, the Commission proposes that financial oversight of the NDBEDP be required to be consistent with NDBEDP orders, rules, and policies, and that OMD and the Bureau closely coordinate on any issues that could potentially impact the distribution of equipment or provision of related services to consumers under the NDBEDP. Finally, consistent with the current practice under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission proposes that the Bureau remain responsible for advising the TRS Fund Administrator on funding allocations and reallocations; payments; and any payment withholdings under the permanent NDBEDP, to the extent that such actions can be made consistently with Government-wide financial requirements and existing contractual obligations and requirements. Currently, the TRS Fund Administrator conducts a quantitative review to determine if the requested dollar amount is accurate and recommends payment, and the NDBEDP Administrator conducts a qualitative review to ensure that the claimed costs are consistent with the NDBEDP rules and approves payment. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should establish a process for certified programs to appeal payment withholdings, denials, or suspensions by the NDBEDP Administrator. If so, what should that process be? For example, should a certified program be permitted to appeal such decisions to the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau? The Commission presently maintains a process for the handling of appeals in response to the suspension or withholding of TRS payments, and asks commenters whether a similar or alternative appeals process should be applied to compensation withheld, suspended, or denied under the NDBEDP.
102. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator is responsible for responding to consumer complaints filed directly with the Commission. Complaints might be filed for various reasons, such as complaints about unskilled trainers or interpreters, or to appeal a certified program's eligibility determination or denial of equipment. The Commission proposes to adopt rules for the permanent NDBEDP to facilitate the receipt and processing of such consumer complaints and appeals.
103. For this purpose, the Commission proposes to adopt informal and formal complaint procedures, modeled after the Commission's processes for the handling of complaints against telecommunications and TRS providers, as follows. First, the Commission proposes that an informal complaint filed with the Commission must include the name and contact information of the complainant; the name of the NDBEDP certified program; a statement describing how the NDBEDP certified program violated the Commission's rules; what the complainant wants the NDBEDP certified program to do to resolve the complaint; and the complainant's preferred format or method of response, such as by letter, fax, telephone, TTY, or email. The Commission will forward complete complaints to the NDBEDP certified program for a response. When it appears that an informal complaint has been resolved, the Commission may consider the matter closed. In all other cases, the Commission will inform the complainant and the NDBEDP certified program about its review and disposition of the complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied with the NDBEDP certified program's response and the Commission's disposition of the informal complaint, the complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission in accordance with the
104. In the
105. The Commission recently announced the formation of a Disability Advisory Committee, which will provide advice and recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability matters, including the NDBEDP. In addition, the Commission's rulemaking proceedings are open to the public for comment, and feedback from administrators of certified programs is always welcome. For example, during the NDBEDP pilot program, the sharing of expertise and ideas for the NDBEDP has been accomplished through informal monthly conference calls among certified programs that the Commission proposes to continue under the permanent program. For these reasons, the Commission does not see the need to establish a separate workgroup of state NDBEDP programs to advise the Commission at this time. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
106. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
107. In the
108. On August 1, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice inviting comment on which rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program should be retained and which should be modified to make the permanent NDBEDP more effective and more efficient. On May 21, 2015, the Commission extended the pilot program until June 30, 2016.
109. Currently, programs are certified to distribute equipment in all the states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The
110. The
111. The
112. The
113. In the
114. Under the Commission's rules for the NDBEDP pilot program, certified programs are compensated for 100% of their expenses, up to each program's annual allocation set by the NDBEDP Administrator. Within this annual allocation amount, the Commission did not establish any caps for costs associated with outreach, assessments, equipment, installation, or training, but did establish a cap for administrative costs. The
115. During each year of the pilot program, the Commission has set aside $500,000 of the $10 million available annually for Perkins School for the Blind, as the outreach coordinator selected by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau), to perform national outreach to promote the NDBEDP. As the Commission explained in the
116. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs to report their status every six months. The
117. During the pilot program, certified programs have been required to engage an independent auditor to perform annual audits designed to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The
118. Under the current NDBEDP, 53 certified programs provide communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. Under the
119. The Commission finds that the rules proposed in the
120. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in the
121. The Commission will send a copy of the
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 719 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 620, that document FCC 15-58 IS ADOPTED.
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Individuals with disabilities; Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
(a) The National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) is established to distribute specialized customer premises equipment (CPE) used for telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.
(b)
(1) Public programs, including, but not limited to, equipment distribution programs, vocational rehabilitation programs, assistive technology programs, or schools for the deaf, blind or deaf-blind; or private entities, including but not limited to, organizational affiliates, independent living centers, or private educational facilities, may apply to the Commission for certification as the sole authorized entity for the state to participate in the NDBEDP and receive reimbursement for its activities from the TRS Fund.
(2) The Commission shall review applications and determine whether to grant certification based on the ability of a program to meet the following qualifications, either directly or in coordination with other programs or entities, as evidenced in the application and any supplemental materials, including letters of recommendation:
(i) Expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including familiarity with the culture and etiquette of people who are deaf-blind, to ensure that equipment distribution and the provision of related services occurs in a manner that is relevant and useful to consumers who are deaf-blind;
(ii) The ability to communicate effectively with people who are deaf-blind (for training and other purposes), by among other things, using sign language, providing materials in Braille, ensuring that information made available online is accessible, and using other assistive technologies and methods to achieve effective communication;
(iii) Administrative and financial management experience;
(iv) Staffing and facilities sufficient to administer the program, including the ability to distribute equipment and provide related services to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind throughout the state, including those in remote areas;
(v) Experience with the distribution of specialized CPE, especially to people who are deaf-blind;
(vi) Experience in training consumers on how to use the equipment and how to set up the equipment for its effective use; and
(vii) Familiarity with the telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services that will be used with the distributed equipment.
(3) Certification granted under this section shall remain in effect for five years. One year prior to the expiration of the certification, a program may apply for renewal of its certification as prescribed by paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) A certified program must notify the Commission within 60 days of any substantive change that bears on its ability to meet the qualifications necessary for certification under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(5) A program may relinquish its certification by providing written notice to the Commission at least 90 days in advance of its intent to do so. This program must transfer NDBEDP-related data and equipment to the newly-certified state program within 30 days of its certification and comply with the reimbursement and reporting requirements prescribed by paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Any person:
(A) Who has a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with corrective lenses, or a field defect such that the peripheral diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees, or a progressive visual loss having a prognosis leading to one or both these conditions;
(B) Who has a chronic hearing impairment so severe that most speech cannot be understood with optimum amplification, or a progressive hearing loss having a prognosis leading to this condition; and
(C) For whom the combination of impairments described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section cause extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining a vocation.
(ii) The definition in this paragraph also includes any individual who, despite the inability to be measured accurately for hearing and vision loss due to cognitive or behavioral constraints, or both, can be determined through functional and performance assessment to have severe hearing and visual disabilities that cause extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining vocational objectives. An applicant's functional abilities with respect to using telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services in various environments shall be
(3)
(d)
(1)
(i) Such professionals may include, but are not limited to, community-based service providers, vision or hearing related professionals, vocational rehabilitation counselors, educators, audiologists, speech pathologists, hearing instrument specialists, and medical or health professionals.
(ii) Such professionals must attest, either to the best of their knowledge or under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is an individual who is deaf-blind (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section). Such professionals may also include, in the attestation, information about the individual's functional abilities to use telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services in various settings.
(iii) Existing documentation that a person is deaf-blind, such as an individualized education program (IEP) or a statement from a public or private agency, such as a Social Security determination letter, may serve as verification of disability.
(iv) The verification of disability must include the attesting professional's full name, title, and contact information, including business name, address, phone number, and email address.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(e)
(1) Each program certified under the NDBEDP must:
(i) Distribute specialized CPE and provide related services needed to make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications, including interexchange services or advanced telecommunications and information services, accessible to individuals who are deaf-blind;
(ii) Obtain verification that NDBEDP applicants meet the definition of an individual who is deaf-blind contained in paragraph (c)(2) of this section at least once every three years and the income eligibility requirements contained in paragraph (d)(2) of this section at least once each year;
(iii) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account and any control of the distributed equipment to another state's certified program when a recipient relocates to that state;
(iv) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account and any control of the distributed equipment from another state's NDBEDP certified program when a recipient relocates to its state;
(v) Prohibit recipients from transferring equipment received under the NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise, and include the following attestation on all consumer application forms:
I certify that all information provided on this application, including information about my disability and income eligibility to receive equipment, is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Program officials have my permission to verify the information provided.
If I am eligible for services, I agree to use these services solely for the purposes intended. I further understand that I may not sell, give, lend, or transfer interest in any equipment provided to me. Falsification of any records or failure to comply with these provisions will result in immediate termination of service. In addition, I understand that if I purposely provide false information I may be subject to legal action. I certify that I have read, understand, and accept all conditions associated with iCanConnect, the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program;
(vi) Conduct outreach, in accessible formats, to inform their state residents about the NDBEDP, which may include the development and maintenance of a program Web site;
(vii) Include a brief narrative description on its Web site of any criteria, priorities, or strategies to ensure the fair distribution of equipment to low-income residents who are deaf-blind;
(viii) Engage an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit, submit a copy of the annual audit to the TRS Fund Administrator and the NDBEDP Administrator, and submit to audits as deemed appropriate by the Commission or its delegated authorities;
(ix) Document compliance with all Commission requirements governing the NDBEDP, retain all records associated with the distribution of equipment and provision of related services under the NDBEDP, including records that support reimbursement claims as required under paragraph (f) of this section and that are needed to generate the reports required under paragraph (g) of this section, for a minimum of five years, and provide such documentation to the Commission upon request; and
(ix) Comply with the reporting requirements contained in paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) Each program certified under the NDBEDP may not:
(i) Impose restrictions on specific brands, models or types of communications technology that recipients may receive to access the communications services covered in this section;
(ii) Disable or otherwise intentionally make it difficult for recipients to use certain capabilities, functions, or features on distributed equipment that
(iii) Accept any type of financial arrangement from equipment vendors that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment.
(f)
(1) Programs certified under the NDBEDP shall be reimbursed for the cost of equipment that has been distributed to low-income individuals who are deaf blind and authorized related services, up to the state's funding allocation under this program as determined by the Commission or any entity authorized to act for the Commission on delegated authority.
(2) Upon certification and at the beginning of each Fund year, state programs may elect to submit reimbursement claims on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis;
(3) Within 30 days after the end of each reimbursement period during the Fund year, each certified program must submit documentation that supports its claim for reimbursement of the reasonable costs of the following:
(i) Equipment and related expenses, including maintenance, repairs, warranties, returns, refurbishing, upgrading, and replacing equipment distributed to consumers;
(ii) Individual needs assessments;
(iii) Installation of equipment and individualized consumer training;
(iv) Maintenance of an inventory of equipment that can be loaned to the consumer during periods of equipment repair;
(v) Outreach efforts to inform state residents about the NDBEDP;
(vi) Train-the-trainer activities, but not to exceed 2.5 percent of the certified program's funding allocation;
(vii) Travel expenses; and
(viii) Administration of the program, but not to exceed 15 percent of the certified program's funding allocation.
(4) With each request for payment, the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or other senior executive of the certified program, such as a manager or director, with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the claim in the request, must certify as follows:
I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that I have examined all cost data associated with equipment and related services for the claims submitted herein, and that all such data are true and an accurate statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.
(g)
(1) Each program certified under the NDBEDP must submit the following data electronically to the Commission, as instructed by the NDBEDP Administrator, every six months:
(i) For each piece of equipment distributed, the full name of the equipment recipient and contact information, including the recipient's residential street and email addresses, and personal phone number;
(ii) For each piece of equipment distributed, the full name of the professional attesting to the disability of the individual who is deaf-blind and business contact information, including street and email addresses, and phone number;
(iii) For each piece of equipment distributed, the model name, serial number, brand, function, and cost, the type of communications service with which it is used, and the type of relay service it can access;
(iv) For each piece of equipment distributed, the amount of time, following any assessment conducted, that the requesting individual waited to receive that equipment;
(v) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to assessing an individual's equipment needs;
(vi) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to installing equipment and training deaf-blind individuals on using equipment;
(vii) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to maintain, repair, cover under warranty, and refurbish equipment;
(viii) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to outreach activities related to the NDBEDP, and the type of outreach efforts undertaken;
(ix) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to upgrading the distributed equipment, along with the nature of such upgrades;
(x) To the extent that the program has denied equipment requests made by their deaf-blind residents, a summary of the number and types of equipment requests denied and reasons for such denials;
(xi) To the extent that the program has received complaints related to the program, a summary of the number and types of such complaints and their resolution; and
(xii) The number of qualified applicants on waiting lists to receive equipment.
(2) With each report, the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or other senior executive of the certified program, such as a director or manager, with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the report, must certify as follows:
I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that the entity has policies and procedures in place to ensure that recipients satisfy the NDBEDP eligibility requirements, that the entity is in compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules, that I have examined the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been provided and all statements of fact are true and an accurate statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.
(h)
(i)
(1)
(i) An informal complaint may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as letter, fax, telephone, TTY, or email.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) Where it appears from the NDBEDP certified program's answer, or from other communications with the parties, that an informal complaint has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider the matter closed without response to the complainant or NDBEDP certified program. In all other cases, the Commission shall inform the parties of its review and disposition of a complaint filed under this subpart. Where practicable, this information shall be transmitted to the complainant and NDBEDP certified program in the manner requested by the complainant.
(B) A complainant unsatisfied with the NDBEDP certified program's response to the informal complaint and the Commission's disposition of the informal complaint may file a formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
(2)
(3)
(j)
(1) NDBEDP certified programs shall permit, without reprisal in the form of an adverse personnel action, purchase or contract cancellation or discontinuance, eligibility disqualification, or otherwise, any current or former employee, agent, contractor, manufacturer, vendor, applicant, or recipient, to disclose to a designated official of the certified program, the NDBEDP Administrator, the TRS Fund Administrator, the Commission's Office of Inspector General and Enforcement Bureau, or to any federal or state law enforcement entity, any known or suspected violations of the Act or Commission rules, or any other activity that the reporting person reasonably believes to be unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive, or that otherwise could result in the improper distribution of equipment, provision of services, or billing to the TRS Fund.
(2) NDBEDP certified programs shall include these whistleblower protections with the information they provide about the program in any employee handbooks or manuals, on their Web sites, and in other appropriate publications.
(k)
(1) The Commission may suspend or revoke NDBEDP certification if, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Commission determines that such certification is no longer warranted.
(2) In the event of suspension or revocation, the Commission shall take such steps as may be necessary, consistent with this subpart, to ensure continuity of the NDBEDP for the state whose program has been suspended or revoked.
(3) The Commission may, at its discretion and on its own motion, require a certified program to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration, which provide for a Governmentwide policy on small business subcontracting.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before August 10, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR case 2014-003 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F. Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.
Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, at 703-605-2868 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2014-003.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to revise the FAR to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in its final rule at 78 FR 42391, dated July 16, 2013, concerning small business subcontracting. Among other things, SBA's final rule implements the statutory requirements set forth at sections 1321 and 1322 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act), (Pub. L. 111-240).
• Section 1321 of the Jobs Act requires promulgation of regulations on subcontracting compliance relating to small business concerns, including assignment of compliance responsibilities between contracting offices, small business offices, and
• Section 1322 of the Jobs Act amends the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(6)) to require as part of a subcontracting plan that a prime contractor make a good faith effort to utilize a small business subcontractor during performance of a contract to the same degree the prime contractor relied on the small business in preparing and submitting its bid or proposal. If a prime contractor does not utilize a small business subcontractor as described above, the prime contractor is required to explain, in writing, to the contracting officer the reasons why it is unable to do so.
SBA's final rule revised 13 CFR 125.3, and also implemented changes aimed at improving subcontracting regulations to increase small business opportunities. These changes include:
• Authorizing contracting officers to establish subcontracting goals in terms of total contract dollars in addition to the required goals in terms of total subcontracted dollars, for individual plans.
• Providing contracting officers discretion to require a subcontracting plan in instances where a prime contractor's size status changes from small to other than small business as a result of rerepresentation.
• Requiring subcontracting plans, to the extent that subcontracting opportunities exist, when a modification causes the overall contract value to exceed the subcontracting plan threshold, even if the modification's value is less than the threshold.
• Requiring prime contractors to assign North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to subcontracts.
• Providing that prime contractors cannot prohibit a subcontractor from discussing payment or utilization matters with the contracting officer.
• Requiring prime contractors to resubmit a corrected subcontracting report within 30 days of receiving the contracting officer's notice of report rejection.
• Clarifying a requirement that prime contractors notify unsuccessful offerors for subcontracts in writing.
• Requiring prime contractors with individual subcontracting plans to report order level subcontracting information.
• Clarifying that failure to comply in good faith with the subcontracting plan shall be a material breach of the contract and may be considered in any past performance evaluation of the prime contractor.
The proposed rule will implement a change in the method that Federal agencies will receive small business subcontracting credit. Historically, the agency that awards the contract also receives the small business subcontracting credit. The proposed rule changes this model by allowing the funding agency to receive the small business credit. SBA implemented this change of providing funding agency credit in its final rule in deference to the concerns expressed by the users of multi-agency contracts (MACs) and Government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs), who have long been of the opinion that the agencies using these vehicles,
This proposed FAR rule also changes the requirement for a prime contractor to submit Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) for DoD and NASA contracts to be annually rather than semi-annually, and deletes the requirement for a prime contractor to submit a separate report to each DoD component for construction and related maintenance and repair contracts.
Amendments to FAR subparts 1.1, 2.1, 15.3, 19.3, 19.7, and 52.2 are proposed by this rule. The proposed changes are summarized in the following paragraphs.
A.
B.
C.
• FAR 15.304, Evaluation factors and significant subfactors. This section is amended to make minor editorial changes.
D.
• FAR 19.301-2, Rerepresentation by a contractor that represented itself as a small business concern. This subsection is amended to give contracting officers the discretionary authority to require a subcontracting plan in the event a prime contractor's size changes from small to other than small as a result of a size rerepresentation on a contract that contains FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
E.
• FAR 19.701, Definitions. This section is amended to reflect the common usage name of “individual subcontracting plans” instead of “individual contract plans” and clarify that a “master plan” refers to a “master subcontracting plan.” This section also adds a definition for the term “total contract dollars” which is introduced in 19.704 in this case.
• FAR 19.702, Statutory requirements. This section is amended to be more consistent with SBA's revised regulations on requiring subcontracting plans when a modification causes the value of a contract without a subcontracting plan to exceed the subcontracting threshold. This section is also amended to remove an outdated reference to clauses in contracts awarded before 1978.
• FAR 19.703, Eligibility requirements for participating in the program. This section is amended to implement SBA's regulatory changes regarding prime contractors' responsibility in assigning NAICS codes and corresponding size standards to subcontracts. In addition, new guidance is added regarding acceptable sources of information a prime contractor may use to determine a subcontractor's size and socioeconomic status and the old language is removed. This section is also amended to correct outdated information and to move language regarding protest of the disadvantaged status of a proposed subcontractor to new paragraph (e).
• FAR 19.704, Subcontracting plan requirements. This section is amended to implement various SBA regulatory changes and clarifications including—
○ Explicitly authorizing contracting officers to establish additional subcontract goals in terms of total
○ A requirement for prime contractors to report order-level subcontracting information for multiple-award contracts intended for use by multiple agencies;
○ A requirement for prime contractors to resubmit a corrected subcontracting report within 30 days of receiving the contracting officer's notice of report rejection;
○ Changing the requirement for semi-annual submission of the SSR for DoD and NASA to be annual;
○ A requirement that prime contractors make good faith efforts to utilize the small business subcontractors to the same or greater extent they were used in preparing the bid or proposal;
○ A requirement for the prime contractor to provide the contracting officer with a written explanation if it does not use a small business subcontractor to the same extent as described in the prime contractor's bid or proposal; and
○ Restricting prime contractors from prohibiting a subcontractor from discussing payment or utilization matters with the contracting officer.
• FAR 19.705, Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
○ FAR 19.705-1, General support of the program. This subsection is amended to revise the title of the subsection and to implement SBA's regulatory requirements regarding subcontracting plans for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts exceeding the subcontracting threshold and discretion of ordering contracting officers to establish subcontracting goals for individual orders.
○ FAR 19.705-2, Determining the need for a subcontracting plan. This subsection is amended to implement SBA's regulatory requirement to establish a subcontracting plan when a modification of any value causes the contract to exceed the subcontracting plan threshold, and there are potential subcontracting opportunities. Language is added to explicitly require the rationale to be placed in the contract file for determining that no subcontracting opportunities exist. This subsection is also amended to clarify that while changes made to an existing subcontracting plan do not apply retroactively, the contractor's achievements prior to the modification will be factored into its overall achievement on the plan. This subsection also adds language clarifying that when a subcontracting plan is required for a contract as a result of a size rerepresentation or a modification which causes the value of the contract to exceed the threshold for a subcontracting plan, the goals in the subcontracting plan apply from the date of incorporation of the plan into the contract and the contractor is to report its subcontracting achievement from the date the plan is incorporated into the contract.
○ FAR 19.705-4, Reviewing the subcontracting plan. This subsection makes conforming changes to paragraphs (b) and (c).
○ FAR 19.705-6, Postaward responsibilities of the contracting officer. This subsection implements the SBA's regulatory requirements for contracting officers to ensure prime contractors meet their obligations under their subcontracting plan. This subsection is amended as follows—
New language is added clarifying that upon receipt of the prime contractor's subcontracting reports into eSRS, the contracting officer shall review the submitted reports within 60 days of the report ending date and ensure that an explanation is provided in the event the contracting officer rejects a submitted report; and
New language is added to require the contracting officer to evaluate a prime contractor's written explanation concerning its failure to use a small business concern in the performance of a contract when that small business concern was used to prepare the bid or proposal.
• FAR 19.708, Contract Clauses. This section is amended to add a prescription for the newly-created Alternate IV to clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
F.
• FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items. This clause is amended to reflect the updated 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.
• FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. This clause is amended to make conforming changes based on changes to FAR 2.101 and 19.703.
• FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This clause is amended to incorporate corresponding guidance and policy changes made to section 19.704 and SBA's regulatory guidance regarding inclusion of indirect costs and awards made by affiliates in ISRs and SSRs. This clause is also amended to reflect the change of DoD's and NASA's semi-annual submission requirement for Summary Subcontract Reports (SSR) and eliminate a unique DoD requirement for a separate SSR for construction contracts. In addition, an Alternate IV to the clause is created for use in contracts where a subcontracting plan will be required when a modification causes the contract to exceed the threshold for a subcontracting plan and there are subcontracting opportunities.
This rule proposes to amend the clauses at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in order to implement sections 1321 and 1322 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, pursuant to the authority granted in 41 U.S.C. 1906 and the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, pursuant to the authority granted in 41 U.S.C. 1907, have determined that the application of these statutory provisions to contracts for commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items, is in the best interests of the Federal Government.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The change may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to provide uniform guidance consistent with SBA's final rule at 78 FR 42391, dated July 16, 2013, which implements Sections 1321 and 1322 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240). SBA's final rule also implements other changes intended to help small
The objectives of this proposed rule are to implement statutory requirements as well as make improvements to increase subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The authorizing legislation for this action are sections 1321 and 1322 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240).
This rule may have a positive economic impact on any small business entity that wishes to participate in the Federal procurement arena as a subcontractor. Analysis of the System for Award Management (SAM) database indicates there are over 297,181 small business registrants. It is unknown how many of these concerns participate in small business subcontracting. Firms do not need to register in the SAM database to participate in subcontracting. Thus, the number of firms participating in subcontracting may be greater than or lower than the number of firms registered in the SAM database.
This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small businesses. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2014-003), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. This proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a request for approval of one new and two revised information collection requirements concerning FAR Case 2014-003 Small Business Subcontracting Improvements to the Office of Management and Budget.
A1.
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
A2.
A3.
B.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether these collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of these collections of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, or clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statements from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F. Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, Utilization of Small Business Subcontractors, 9000-0006, Subcontracting Plans/Subcontract Report For Individual Contracts, or 9000-0007, Summary Subcontract Report, as applicable, in all correspondence.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 19, and 52, as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)(i) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
(e) A change in size status does not change the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the contracting officer may require a subcontracting plan for a contract containing 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if a prime contractor's size status changes from small to other than small as a result of a size rerepresentation.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Each contract modification that causes the value of a contract without a subcontracting plan to exceed $650,000 ($1.5 million for construction), shall require the contractor to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan for the contract, if the contracting officer determines that subcontracting opportunities exist.
(b) * * *
(4) For modifications to contracts within the general scope of the contract that do not contain the clause at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.
The added and revised text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * * For subcontracting purposes, a concern is small if it does not exceed the size standard for the NAICS code that the prime contractor determines best describes the product or service being acquired by the subcontract.
(2)(i) The prime contractor may accept a subcontractor's representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business in the System for Award Management (SAM) if:
(A) The subcontractor is registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations made in SAM (or any successor system) are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(ii) The prime contractor may accept a subcontractor's written representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged
(A) The subcontractor is not registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations provided with its offer are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(b) The contractor, the contracting officer, or any other interested party can challenge a subcontractor's size status representation by filing a protest, in accordance with 13 CFR 121.1001 through 121.1008.
(e) The contracting officer or the SBA may protest the disadvantaged status of a proposed subcontractor. Protests challenging a subcontractor's small disadvantaged business representation must be filed in accordance with 13 CFR 124.1007 through 124.1014. Other interested parties may submit information to the contracting officer or the SBA in an effort to persuade the contracting officer or the SBA to initiate a protest. Such protests, in order to be considered timely, must be submitted to the SBA prior to completion of performance by the intended subcontractor.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) Each subcontracting plan required under 19.301-2(e) and 19.702(a)(1), (2), and (3) shall include—
(1) * * *
(2) A statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted and a statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business (including ANCs and Indian tribes), veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business (including ANCs and Indian tribes) and women-owned small business concerns, as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. For individual subcontracting plans, a contracting officer may require the goals referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to be established as a percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals established as a percentage of total subcontract dollars;
(3) The NAICS code and corresponding size standard of each subcontract that best describes the principal purpose, including the supplies and services to be subcontracted, and an identification of types of supplies or services planned for subcontracting to small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business (including ANCs and Indian tribes), and women-owned small business concerns;
(10) * * *
(iii) Include subcontracting data for each order when reporting subcontracting achievements for multiple-award contracts intended for use by multiple agencies;
(iv) * * *
(A) * * * When a contracting officer rejects an ISR due the report being incomplete or incorrect, the contractor is required to submit a revised ISR within 30 days of receiving the notice of the ISR rejection.
(B) The SSR shall be submitted annually by October 30 for the twelve-month period ending September 30. When a contracting officer rejects an SSR due to the report being incomplete or incorrect, the contractor is required to submit a revised SSR within 30 days of receiving the notice of SSR rejection;
(12) Assurances that the offeror will make a good faith effort to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or materials, or obtain the performance of construction work from the small business concerns that the offeror used in preparing the bid or proposal, in the same or greater scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the bid or proposal. Responding to a request for a quote does not constitute use in preparing a bid or proposal. An offeror used a small business concern in preparing the bid or proposal if—
(i) The offeror identifies the small business concern as a subcontractor in the bid or proposal or associated small business subcontracting plan, to furnish certain supplies or perform a portion of the contract; or
(ii) The offeror used the small business concern's pricing or cost information or technical expertise in preparing the bid or proposal, where there is written evidence of an intent or understanding that the small business concern will be awarded a subcontract for the related work if the offeror is awarded the contract;
(13) A requirement for the contractor to provide the contracting officer with a written explanation if the contractor fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services or materials or obtain the performance of construction work as described in (a)(12) of this section. This written explanation shall be submitted to the contracting officer within 30 days of contract completion; and
(14) Assurances that the contractor will not prohibit a subcontractor from discussing with the contracting officer any material matter pertaining to payment to or utilization of a subcontractor.
(c) * * * If a subcontracting plan is necessary and the offeror is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the individual subcontracting plan shall contain all the elements required by paragraph (a) of this section and shall contain separate statements and goals for the basic contract and for each option.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(b)(1) Except where a contractor has a commercial plan, the contracting officer shall require a subcontracting plan for each indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (including task or delivery order contracts, FSS, GWACs, and MACs), when the estimated value of the contract meets the subcontracting
(2) Contracting officers placing orders may establish small business subcontracting goals for each order.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a)(1) Determine whether the proposed total contract dollars will exceed the subcontracting plan threshold in 19.702(a).
(2) Determine whether a proposed modification will cause the total contract dollars to exceed the subcontracting plan threshold (see 19.702(a)).
(b) * * *
(3) Whether the firm can acquire the items to be furnished by contract with minimal or no disruption of contract performance (with consideration given to the time remaining until contract completion), and at fair market value, when a determination is made in accordance with paragraph (a)(2).
(c)(1) When adding a subcontracting plan pursuant to 19.705-2(a)(2), the subcontracting goals apply from the date of incorporation of the subcontracting plan into the contract.
(2) If it is determined that there are no subcontracting possibilities, the determination shall include a detailed rationale, be approved at a level above the contracting officer, and placed in the contract file.
(e) A contract may have no more than one subcontracting plan. When a contract modification exceeds the subcontracting plan threshold (see 19.702(a)), or an option is exercised, the goals of an existing subcontracting plan shall be amended to reflect any new subcontracting opportunities. These goal changes do not apply retroactively.
(f) If a subcontracting plan has been added to the contract due to a modification (see 19.702(a)(3)) or a size re-representation (see 19.301-2(e)), the contractor's achievements must be reported on the ISR (or the SF-294, if applicable) on a cumulative basis from the date of incorporation of the subcontracting plan into the contract.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
After a contract or contract modification containing a subcontracting plan is awarded or an existing subcontracting plan is amended, the contracting officer shall do the following:
(f) Monitor the prime contractor's compliance with its subcontracting plan, to include the following:
(1) Ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted into the eSRS (or any successor system) within 30 days after the report ending date (
(2) Review ISRs, and where applicable, SSRs, in eSRS (or any successor system) within 60 days of the report ending date (
(3) Either acknowledge receipt of or reject the reports in accordance with subpart 19.7, 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and the eSRS instructions (
(i) The authority to acknowledge or reject SSRs for commercial plans resides with the contracting officer who approved the commercial plan.
(ii) If a report is rejected, the contracting officer must provide an explanation for the rejection to allow the prime contractor the opportunity to respond specifically to perceived deficiencies.
(g) Evaluate the prime contractor's compliance with its subcontracting plan, to include the following:
(1) Assess whether the prime contractor made a good faith effort to comply with its small business subcontracting plan (see 13 CFR 125.3(d)(3)).
(2) Assess the prime contractor's written explanation concerning the prime contractor's failure to use a small business concern in the performance of the contract in the same scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the bid or proposal, if applicable.
The added text reads as follows:
(b)(1) * * *
(iv) Incorporating a subcontracting plan due to a modification as provided for in 19.702(a)(3), the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate IV.
(b) * * *
__(16) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Date) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)).
__(17)(i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Date) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).
__(ii) Alternate I (Date) of 52.219-9.
__(iii) Alternate II (Date) of 52.219-9.
__(iv) Alternate III (Date) of 52.219-9.
__(v) Alternative IV (Date) of 52.219-9.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(d)(1) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business in the System for Award Management (SAM) if:
(i) The subcontractor is registered in SAM; and
(ii) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations made in SAM (or any successor system) are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(2) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's written representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business if:
(i) The subcontractor is not registered in SAM; and
(ii) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations provided with its offer are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(b)
(c)(1) The Offeror, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan, where applicable, that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. If the Offeror is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the plan must separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any). The subcontracting plan shall be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to submit and negotiate the subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.
(2)(i) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business in the System for Award Management (SAM) if:
(A) The subcontractor is registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations made in SAM (or any successor system) are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(ii) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's written representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business if:
(A) The subcontractor is not registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations provided with its offer are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(d) The Offeror's subcontracting plan shall include the following:
(1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business
(i) Subcontracts awarded to an ANC or Indian tribe shall be counted towards the subcontracting goals for small business and small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, regardless of the size or Small Business Administration certification status of the ANC or Indian tribe.
(ii) Where one or more subcontractors are in the subcontract tier between the Contractor and the ANC or Indian tribe, the ANC or Indian tribe shall designate the appropriate Contractor(s) to count the subcontract towards its small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting goals.
(A) In most cases, the appropriate Contractor is the Contractor that awarded the subcontract to the ANC or Indian tribe.
(B) If the ANC or Indian tribe designates more than one Contractor to count the subcontract toward its goals, the ANC or Indian tribe shall designate only a portion of the total subcontract award to each Contractor. The sum of the amounts designated to various Contractors cannot exceed the total value of the subcontract.
(C) The ANC or Indian tribe shall give a copy of the written designation to the Contracting Officer, the prime Contractor, and the subcontractors in between the prime Contractor and the ANC or Indian tribe within 30 days of the date of the subcontract award.
(D) If the Contracting Officer does not receive a copy of the ANC's or the Indian tribe's written designation within 30 days of the subcontract award, the Contractor that awarded the subcontract to the ANC or Indian tribe will be considered the designated Contractor.
(2) A statement of—
(i) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted for an individual contract plan; or the Offeror's total projected sales, expressed in dollars, and the total value of projected subcontracts to support the sales for a commercial plan;
(ii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes);
(iii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to service-disabled veteran-owned small business;
(v) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to HUBZone small business concerns;
(vi) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small disadvantaged business concerns (including ANCs and Indian tribes); and
(vii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to women-owned small business concerns.
(3) The NAICS code and corresponding size standard of each subcontract that best describes the principal purpose, including the types of supplies and services to be subcontracted, and an identification of the types planned for subcontracting to—
(i) Small business concerns;
(ii) Veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iii) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) HUBZone small business concerns;
(v) Small disadvantaged business concerns; and
(vi) Women-owned small business concerns.
(4) A description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.
(5) A description of the method used to identify potential sources for solicitation purposes (
(6) A statement as to whether or not the Offeror in included indirect costs in establishing subcontracting goals, and a description of the method used to determine the proportionate share of indirect costs to be incurred with—
(i) Small business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes);
(ii) Veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iii) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) HUBZone small business concerns;
(v) Small disadvantaged business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes); and
(vi) Women-owned small business concerns.
(7) The name of the individual employed by the Offeror who will administer the Offeror's subcontracting program, and a description of the duties of the individual.
(8) A description of the efforts the Offeror will make to assure that small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.
(9) Assurances that the Offeror will include the clause of this contract entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities, and that the Offeror will require all subcontractors (except small business concerns) that receive subcontracts in excess of $650,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility) with further subcontracting possibilities to adopt a subcontracting plan that complies with the requirements of this clause.
(10) Assurances that the Offeror will—
(i) Cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be required;
(ii) Submit periodic reports so that the Government can determine the extent of compliance by the Offeror with the subcontracting plan;
(iii) Include subcontracting data for each order when reporting subcontracting achievements for multiple-award contracts intended for use by multiple agencies;
(iv) Submit the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and/or the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at
(v) Ensure that its subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit the ISR and/or the SSR using eSRS;
(vi) Provide its prime contract number, its DUNS number, and the email address of the Offeror's official responsible for acknowledging receipt of or rejecting the ISRs, to all first-tier subcontractors with subcontracting plans so they can enter this information into the eSRS when submitting their ISRs; and
(vii) Require that each subcontractor with a subcontracting plan provide the prime contract number, its own DUNS number, and the email address of the subcontractor's official responsible for acknowledging receipt of or rejecting the ISRs, to its subcontractors with subcontracting plans.
(11) A description of the types of records that will be maintained concerning procedures that have been adopted to comply with the requirements and goals in the plan, including establishing source lists; and a description of the Offeror's efforts to locate small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns and award subcontracts to them. The records shall include at least the following (on a plant-wide or company-wide basis, unless otherwise indicated):
(i) Source lists (
(ii) Organizations contacted in an attempt to locate sources that are small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, or women-owned small business concerns.
(iii) Records on each subcontract solicitation resulting in an award of more than $150,000, indicating—
(A) Whether small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(B) Whether veteran-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(C) Whether service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(D) Whether HUBZone small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(E) Whether small disadvantaged business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(F) Whether women-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not; and
(G) If applicable, the reason award was not made to a small business concern.
(iv) Records of any outreach efforts to contact—
(A) Trade associations;
(B) Business development organizations;
(C) Conferences and trade fairs to locate small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business sources; and
(D) Veterans service organizations.
(v) Records of internal guidance and encouragement provided to buyers through—
(A) Workshops, seminars, training, etc.; and
(B) Monitoring performance to evaluate compliance with the program's requirements.
(vi) On a contract-by-contract basis, records to support award data submitted by the Offeror to the Government, including the name, address, and business size of each subcontractor. Contractors having commercial plans need not comply with this requirement.
(12) Assurances that the Offeror will make a good faith effort to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or materials, or obtain the performance of construction work from the small business concerns that it used in preparing the bid or proposal, in the same or greater scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the bid or proposal. Responding to a request for a quote does not constitute use in preparing a bid or proposal. The Offeror used a small business concern in preparing the bid or proposal if—
(i) The Offeror identifies the small business concern as a subcontractor in the bid or proposal or associated small business subcontracting plan, to furnish certain supplies or perform a portion of the subcontract; or
(ii) The Offeror used the small business concern's pricing or cost information or technical expertise in preparing the bid or proposal, where there is written evidence of an intent or understanding that the small business concern will be awarded a subcontract for the related work if the Offeror is awarded the contract.
(13) A requirement for the Contractor to provide the Contracting Officer with a written explanation if the Contractor fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services or materials or obtain the performance of construction work as described in (d)(12) of this clause. This written explanation must be submitted to the Contracting Officer within 30 days of contract completion.
(14) Assurances that the Contractor will not prohibit a subcontractor from discussing with the Contracting Officer any material matter pertaining to payment to or utilization of a subcontractor.
(e) * * *
(4) Confirm that a subcontractor representing itself as a HUBZone small business concern is certified by SBA as a HUBZone small business concern in accordance with 52.219-8(d)(2).
(6) For all competitive subcontracts over the simplified acquisition threshold in which a small business concern received a small business preference, upon determination of the successful subcontract Offeror, the Contractor must inform each unsuccessful small business subcontract Offeror in writing of the name and location of the apparent successful Offeror and if the successful subcontract Offeror is a small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, or women-owned small business concern, prior to award of the subcontract.
(f) A master subcontracting plan on a plant or division-wide basis that contains all the elements required by paragraph (d) of this clause, except goals, may be incorporated by reference as a part of the subcontracting plan required of the Offeror by this clause; provided—
(1) The master subcontracting plan has been approved,
(2) The Offeror ensures that the master subcontracting plan is updated as necessary and provides copies of the approved master plan, including evidence of its approval, to the Contracting Officer, and
(3) Goals and any deviations from the master subcontracting plan deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer to satisfy the requirements of this contract are set forth in the individual subcontracting plan.
(i) A contract may have no more than one subcontracting plan. When a contract modification exceeds the subcontracting plan threshold in 19.702(a), or an option is exercised, the goals of the existing subcontracting plan shall be amended to reflect any new subcontracting opportunities. When the goals in a subcontracting plan are amended, these goal changes do not apply retroactively.
(k) The failure of the Contractor or subcontractor to comply in good faith with—
(1) The clause of this contract entitled “Utilization Of Small Business Concerns”; or
(2) An approved plan required by this clause, shall be a material breach of the contract and may be considered in any past performance evaluation of the Contractor.
(l) The Contractor shall submit ISRs and SSRs using the web-based eSRS at
(1)
(i) The report shall be submitted semi-annually during contract performance for the periods ending March 31 and September 30. A report is also required for each contract within 30 days of contract completion. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period, unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer. Reports are required when due, regardless of whether there has been any subcontracting activity since the inception of the contract or the previous reporting period. When the Contracting Officer rejects an ISR, the Contractor shall submit a corrected report shall within 30 days of receiving the notice of ISR rejection.
(ii)(A) When a subcontracting plan contains separate goals for the basic contract and each option, as prescribed by 19.704(c), the dollar goal inserted on this report shall be the sum of the base period through the current option; for example, for a report submitted after the second option is exercised, the dollar goal would be the sum of the goals for the basic contract, the first option, and the second option.
(B) If a subcontracting plan has been added to the contract pursuant to 19.705-2(c) or 19.301-2(e), the Contractor's achievements must be reported in the ISR on a cumulative basis from the date of incorporation of the subcontracting plan into the contract.
(iii) When a subcontracting plan includes indirect costs in the goals, these costs must be included in this report.
(iv) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the ISR resides—
(A) In the case of the prime Contractor, with the Contracting Officer; and
(B) In the case of a subcontract with a subcontracting plan, with the entity that awarded the subcontract.
(2)
(A) This report encompasses all subcontracting under prime contracts and subcontracts with an executive agency, regardless of the dollar value of the subcontracts. This report also includes indirect costs on a prorated basis when the indirect costs are excluded from the subcontracting goals;
(B) The report may be submitted on a corporate, company or subdivision (
(C) If the Contractor or a subcontractor is performing work for more than one executive agency, a separate report shall be submitted to each executive agency covering only that agency's contracts, provided at least one of that agency's contracts is over $650,000 (over $1.5 million for construction of a public facility) and contains a subcontracting plan. For DoD, a consolidated report shall be submitted for all contracts awarded by military departments/agencies and/or subcontracts awarded by DoD prime Contractors.
(D) The report shall be submitted annually by October 30 for the twelve month period ending September 30. When a Contracting Officer rejects an SSR, the Contractor shall submit a revised report within 30 days of receiving the notice of SSR rejection.
(F) The authority to acknowledge or reject SSRs in eSRS, including SSRs submitted by subcontractors with subcontracting plans, resides with the Government agency awarding the prime contracts unless stated otherwise in the contract.
(ii)
(A) The report shall include all subcontract awards under the commercial plan in effect during the Government's fiscal year and all indirect costs.
(B)The report shall be submitted annually, within thirty days after the end of the Government's fiscal year.
(C) If a Contractor has a commercial plan and is performing work for more than one executive agency, the Contractor shall specify the percentage of dollars attributable to each agency.
(D) The authority to acknowledge or reject SSRs for commercial plans resides with the Contracting Officer who approved the commercial plan.
(c)(1) The apparent low bidder, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit a subcontracting plan, where applicable, that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. If the bidder is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the plan must separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any). The plan shall be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The subcontracting plan shall be submitted within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to submit the subcontracting plan shall make the bidder ineligible for the award of a contract.
(c)(1) Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a subcontracting plan that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. If the Offeror is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the plan must separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any). The plan shall be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.
(d)(10) Assurances that the Offeror will—
(i) Cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be required;
(ii) Submit periodic reports so that the Government can determine the extent of compliance by the Offeror with the subcontracting plan;
(iii) Submit Standard Form (SF) 294 Subcontracting Report for Individual Contract in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause. Submit the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at
(iv) Ensure that its subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit the SF 294 in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause. Ensure that its subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit the SSR in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause using the eSRS.
(l) The Contractor shall submit a SF 294. The Contractor shall submit SSRs using the web-based eSRS at
(1)
(i) The report shall be submitted semi-annually during contract performance for the periods ending March 31 and September 30. A report is also required for each contract within 30 days of contract completion. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period, unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer. Reports are required when due, regardless of whether there has been any subcontracting activity since the inception of the contract or the previous reporting period. When a Contracting Officer rejects a report, the Contractor shall submit a revised report within 30 days of receiving the notice of report rejection.
(ii) When a subcontracting plan contains separate goals for the basic contract and each option, as prescribed by 19.704(c), the dollar goal inserted on this report shall be the sum of the base period through the current option; for example, for a report submitted after the second option is exercised, the dollar goal would be the sum of the goals for the basic
(iii) When a subcontracting plan includes indirect costs in the goals, these costs must be included in this report.
(2)
(A) This report encompasses all subcontracting under prime contracts and subcontracts with an executive agency, regardless of the dollar value of the subcontracts. This report also includes indirect costs on a prorated basis when the indirect costs are excluded from the subcontracting goals.
(B) The report may be submitted on a corporate, company or subdivision (
(C) If the Contractor and/or subcontractor is performing work for more than one executive agency, a separate report shall be submitted to each executive agency covering only that agency's contracts, provided at least one of that agency's contracts is over $550,000 (over $1,000,000 for construction of a public facility) and contains a subcontracting plan. For DoD, a consolidated report shall be submitted for all contracts awarded by military departments/agencies and/or subcontracts awarded by DoD prime Contractors.
(D) The report shall be submitted annually by October 30, for the twelve month period ending September 30. When a Contracting Officer rejects an SSR, the Contractor is required to submit a revised SSR within 30 days of receiving the notice of report rejection.
(E) Subcontract awards that are related to work for more than one executive agency shall be appropriately allocated.
(F) The authority to acknowledge or reject SSRs in the eSRS, including SSRs submitted by subcontractors with subcontracting plans, resides with the Government agency awarding the prime contracts unless stated otherwise in the contract.
(ii)
(A) The report shall include all subcontract awards under the commercial plan in effect during the Government's fiscal year and all indirect costs.
(B) The report shall be submitted annually, within thirty days after the end of the Government's fiscal year.
(C) If a Contractor has a commercial plan and is performing work for more than one executive agency, the Contractor shall specify the percentage of dollars attributable to each agency.
(D) The authority to acknowledge or reject SSRs for commercial plans resides with the Contracting Officer who approved the commercial plan.
(c)(1) The Contractor, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan, where applicable, that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. If the Contractor is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the plan shall separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any). The subcontracting plan shall be incorporated into the contract. The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated within the time specified by the Contracting Officer.
(2)(i) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business in the System for Award Management (SAM) if:
(A) The subcontractor is registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations made in SAM (or any successor system) are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(ii) The prime Contractor may accept a subcontractor's written representations of its small business size and status as a small disadvantaged business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, or a woman-owned small business if:
(A) The subcontractor is not registered in SAM; and
(B) The subcontractor represents that the size and status representations provided with its offer are current, accurate and complete as of the date of the offer for the subcontract.
(d) The Contractor's subcontracting plan shall include the following:
(1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. For individual subcontracting plans, and if required by the Contracting Officer, goals also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. The Contractor shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs. In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1626—
(i) Subcontracts awarded to an ANC or Indian tribe shall be counted towards the subcontracting goals for small business and small disadvantaged business concerns, regardless of the size or Small Business Administration certification status of the ANC or Indian tribe; and
(ii) Where one or more subcontractors are in the subcontract tier between the prime Contractor and the ANC or Indian tribe, the ANC or Indian tribe shall designate the appropriate Contractor(s) to count the subcontract towards its small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting goals.
(A) In most cases, the appropriate Contractor is the Contractor that awarded the subcontract to the ANC or Indian tribe.
(B) If the ANC or Indian tribe designates more than one Contractor to count the subcontract toward its goals, the ANC or Indian tribe shall designate only a portion of the total subcontract award to each Contractor. The sum of the amounts designated to various Contractors cannot exceed the total value of the subcontract.
(C) The ANC or Indian tribe shall give a copy of the written designation to the Contracting Officer, the Contractor, and the subcontractors in between the prime Contractor and the ANC or Indian tribe within 30 days of the date of the subcontract award.
(D) If the Contracting Officer does not receive a copy of the ANC's or the Indian tribe's written designation within 30 days of the subcontract award, the Contractor that awarded the subcontract to the ANC or Indian tribe will be considered the designated Contractor.
(2) A statement of—
(i) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted for an individual subcontracting plan; or the Contractor's total projected sales, expressed in dollars, and the total value of projected subcontracts to support the sales for a commercial plan;
(ii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes);
(iii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to service-disabled veteran-owned small business;
(v) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to HUBZone small business concerns;
(vi) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small disadvantaged business concerns (including ANCs and Indian tribes); and
(vii) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to women-owned small business concerns.
(3) The NAICS code and corresponding size standard of each subcontract that best describes the principal purpose, including the types of supplies and services to be subcontracted, and an identification of the types planned for subcontracting to—
(i) Small business concerns;
(ii) Veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iii) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) HUBZone small business concerns;
(v) Small disadvantaged business concerns; and
(vi) Women-owned small business concerns.
(4) A description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.
(5) A description of the method used to identify potential sources for solicitation purposes (
(6) A statement as to whether or not the Contractor included indirect costs in establishing subcontracting goals, and a description of the method used to determine the proportionate share of indirect costs to be incurred with—
(i) Small business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes);
(ii) Veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iii) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns;
(iv) HUBZone small business concerns;
(v) Small disadvantaged business concerns (including ANC and Indian tribes); and
(vi) Women-owned small business concerns.
(7) The name of the individual employed by the Contractor who will administer the Contractor's subcontracting program, and a description of the duties of the individual.
(8) A description of the efforts the Contractor will make to assure that small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.
(9) Assurances that the Contractor will include the clause of this contract entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities, and that the Contractor will require all subcontractors (except small business concerns) that receive subcontracts in excess of $650,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility) with further subcontracting possibilities to adopt a subcontracting plan that complies with the requirements of this clause.
(10) Assurances that the Contractor will—
(i) Cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be required;
(ii) Submit periodic reports so that the Government can determine the extent of compliance by the Contractor with the subcontracting plan;
(iii) Include subcontracting data for each order when reporting subcontracting achievements for a multiple-award contract intended for use by multiple agencies;
(iv) Submit the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and/or the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR), in accordance with paragraph (l) of this clause using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at
(v) Ensure that its subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit the ISR and/or the SSR using eSRS;
(vi) Provide its prime contract number, its DUNS number, and the email address of the Contractor's official responsible for acknowledging receipt of or rejecting the ISRs, to all first-tier subcontractors with subcontracting plans so they can enter this information into the eSRS when submitting their ISRs; and
(vii) Require that each subcontractor with a subcontracting plan provide the prime contract number, its own DUNS number, and the email address of the subcontractor's official responsible for acknowledging receipt of or rejecting the ISRs, to its subcontractors with subcontracting plans.
(11) A description of the types of records that will be maintained concerning procedures that have been adopted to comply with the requirements and goals in the plan, including establishing source lists; and a description of the Contractor's efforts to locate small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns and award subcontracts to them. The records shall include at least the following (on a plant-wide or company-wide basis, unless otherwise indicated):
(i) Source lists (
(ii) Organizations contacted in an attempt to locate sources that are small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, or women-owned small business concerns.
(iii) Records on each subcontract solicitation resulting in an award of more than $150,000, indicating—
(A) Whether small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(B) Whether veteran-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(C) Whether service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(D) Whether HUBZone small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(E) Whether small disadvantaged business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not;
(F) Whether women-owned small business concerns were solicited and, if not, why not; and
(G) If applicable, the reason award was not made to a small business concern.
(iv) Records of any outreach efforts to contact—
(A) Trade associations;
(B) Business development organizations;
(C) Conferences and trade fairs to locate small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled veteran-owned, and women-owned small business sources; and
(D) Veterans service organizations.
(v) Records of internal guidance and encouragement provided to buyers through—
(A) Workshops, seminars, training,
(B) Monitoring performance to evaluate compliance with the program's requirements.
(vi) On a contract-by-contract basis, records to support award data submitted by the Contractor to the Government, including the name, address, and business size of each subcontractor. Contractors having commercial plans need not comply with this requirement.
(12) Assurances that the Contractor will make a good faith effort to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or materials, or obtain the performance of construction work from the small business concerns that it used in preparing or proposal for the modification, in the same or greater scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the modification proposal. Responding to a request for a quote does not constitute use in preparing a proposal. The Contractor used a small business concern in preparing the proposal for a modification if—
(i) The Contractor identifies the small business concern as a subcontractor in the proposal or associated small business subcontracting plan, to furnish certain supplies or perform a portion of the subcontract; or
(ii) The Contractor used the small business concern's pricing or cost information or technical expertise in preparing the proposal, where there is written evidence of an intent or understanding that the small business concern will be awarded a subcontract for the related work when the modification is executed.
(13) A requirement for the Contractor to provide the Contracting Officer with a written explanation if the Contractor fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services or materials or obtain the performance of construction work as described in paragraph (d)(12) of this clause. This written explanation must be submitted to the Contracting Officer within 30 days of contract completion.
(14) Assurances that the Contractor will not prohibit a subcontractor from discussing with the contracting officer any material
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), proposal to designate or revise critical habitat for 135 plant and animal species on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These 135 species include 2 plant species for which we reaffirmed their endangered listing status on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014); 37 plant and animal species we proposed for listing on June 11, 2012, and subsequently listed as endangered on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 32014); 11 plant and animal species that are also already listed as endangered but do not have critical habitat designations; and 85 plant species that are already listed as endangered or threatened and have designated critical habitat, but for which we proposed revisions to critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties further opportunity to comment on areas that we are considering for exclusion in the final rule. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule do not need to be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
(1)
(2)
We will post all comments we receive on
Kristi Young, Acting Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for 135 species on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (collectively, “Maui Nui”) that was published in the
In particular we are seeking public comment on the areas that we are considering for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat. Although we had previously indicated that we were considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, and asked for comment on the broad public benefits of encouraging collaborative conservation efforts with local and private partners, we are now offering an additional opportunity for public comment on this issue. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.
We are particularly interested in comments concerning whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S. C. 1531
• The benefits of including any specific areas in the final designation and supporting rationale.
• The benefits of excluding any specific areas from the final designation and supporting rationale.
• Whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of the species and why.
For non-Federal lands in particular, we are interested in information regarding the potential benefits of including such lands in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. This information does not need to include a
Our final determination concerning the designation of critical habitat for 135 species on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe will take into consideration all written comments and information we receive during all comment periods; from peer reviewers; and during the public information meeting, as well as comments and public testimony we received during the public hearing, that we held in Kihei, Maui, on February 21, 2013 (see 78 FR 6785; January 31, 2013). The comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. On the basis of peer reviewer and public comments, as well as any new information we may receive, we may, during the development of our final determination concerning critical habitat, find that areas within the proposed critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464) during any of the previous open comment periods from June 11, 2012, through September 10, 2012 (77 FR 34464 and 77 FR 47587), from January 31, 2013, through March 4, 2013 (78 FR 6785), or at the public information meeting or hearing on February 21, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations.
You may submit your comments by one of the methods listed in the
Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on
The topics discussed below are relevant to designation of critical habitat for 135 species on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning these species, refer to the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat published in the
On June 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 34464) to list 38 species as endangered and designate or revise critical habitat for 135 plant and animal species. We proposed to designate a total of 271,062 acres (ac) (109,695 hectares (ha)) on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe (collectively called Maui Nui) as critical habitat. Approximately 47 percent of the area proposed as critical habitat is already designated as critical habitat for other species, including 85 plant species for which critical habitat was designated in 1984 (49 FR 44753; November 9, 1984) and 2003 (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Within that proposed rule, we announced a 60-day comment period, which we subsequently extended for an additional 30 days (77 FR 47587; August 9, 2012); in total, the comment period began on June 11, 2012, and ended on September 10, 2012. On January 31, 2013, we announced the availability of the draft economic analysis on the proposed designation of critical habitat, and reopened the comment period on our proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and amended required determinations for another 30 days, through March 4, 2013 (78 FR 6785). On January 31, 2013, we also announced a public information meeting in Kihei, Maui, which we held on February 21, 2013, followed by a public hearing on that same day.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency unless it is exempted pursuant to the provisions of the Act (16 U.S. C. 1536(e)-(n) and (p)). Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consistent with the best scientific data available, the standards of the Act, and our regulations, we have initially identified, for public comment, a total of 271,062 ac (109,695 ha) in 100 units for the 130 plants, 44 units for each of the 2 forest birds, 5 units for each of the Lanai tree snails, and 1 unit for the Maui tree snail, located on the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, that meet the definition of critical habitat for the 135 plant and animal species. In addition, the Act provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. In the case of the 135 Maui Nui species, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of one or more of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, when considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of conservation partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. We also consider the potential economic impacts that may result from the designation of critical habitat.
In weighing the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion, we consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. We consider the establishment and encouragement of strong conservation partnerships with non-Federal landowners to be especially important in the State of Hawaii, where there are relatively few lands under Federal ownership; we cannot achieve the conservation and recovery of listed species in Hawaii without the help and cooperation of non-Federal landowners. We consider building partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands and necessary to implement recovery actions, such as the reintroduction of listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing to endangered species recovery. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners, safe harbor agreements, other conservation agreements, easements, and State and local regulations enhance species conservation by extending species protections beyond those available through section 7 consultations. We encourage non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements based on a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal lands through such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods alone, particularly for listed plants which are not subject to the Act's section 9 prohibition on taking (USFWS and NOAA 1996c (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996)).
Because so many important conservation areas for the Maui Nui species occur on lands managed by non-Federal entities, collaborative relationships are essential for their recovery. The Maui Nui species and their habitat are expected to benefit substantially from voluntary land management actions that implement appropriate and effective conservation strategies, or that add to our knowledge of the species and their ecological needs. The conservation benefits of critical habitat, on the other hand, are primarily regulatory or prohibitive in nature. Where consistent with the discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is both desirable and necessary to implement policies that provide positive incentives to non-Federal landowners and land managers to voluntarily conserve natural resources and to remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Wilcove
In the proposed rule (June 11, 2012; 77 FR 34464), we identified several specific areas under consideration for exclusion from critical habitat, totaling approximately 40,973 ac (16,582 ha) of private lands under perpetual conservation easement, voluntary conservation agreement, conservation or watershed preserve designation, or similar conservation protection. The areas initially identified for potential exclusion, as detailed in our proposed rule, included lands owned or managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Ulupalakua Ranch, Haleakala Ranch Company, and East Maui Irrigation Company.
In the document reopening the comment period on our proposed rule, published January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6785), we specifically noted that we are considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, and whether the benefits of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion of those areas. We asked for public comment on such potential exclusions, and for information regarding the potential benefits of including private lands in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. We further noted that exclusions in the final rule would not necessarily be limited to those we had initially identified in the proposed rule. Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34464), we have identified additional private or non-Federal lands that we are considering for exclusion from critical habitat. These include lands owned or managed by Nuu Mauka Ranch; Kaupo Ranch; Wailuku Water Company;
We are considering exclusion of 2,094 ac (848 ha) of lands that are owned by Nuu Mauka Ranch. The ongoing management under the Native Watershed Forest Restoration Conservation Plan, Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership (LHWRP) management plan, and the Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project agreement for Nuu Mauka Ranch lands on east Maui provides for the conservation of 46 plants and the 2 forest birds and their habitat, and demonstrates the positive benefits of the conservation partnership that has been established with Nuu Mauka Ranch.
Nuu Mauka Ranch is involved in several important voluntary conservation agreements with the Service and other agencies, and is currently carrying out activities on their lands for the conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats. In 2008, the Ranch worked with the United States Geological Survey (USGS)-Pacific Island Ecosystem Research Center and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to develop cost-effective, substrate appropriate restoration methodologies for establishment of native koa (
We are considering exclusion of 931 ac (377 ha) of lands that are owned or managed by Kaupo Ranch. Kaupo Ranch has undertaken voluntary conservation measures on their lands, demonstrating their value as a partner through participation in the LHWRP management plans and the appended written commitments by Kaupo Ranch, and the Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project for Kaupo Ranch lands on east Maui. These actions provide positive conservation benefits for 25 plant species and their habitat.
Kaupo Ranch is a current partner of the LHWRP, with the main goal of protection and restoration of leeward Haleakala's upland. Kaupo Ranch has identified the following conservation actions that will be appended to the LHWRP: (1) Fence existing native koa forest and remove ungulates. Kaupo Ranch also plans to expand koa forest restoration on their lands. These actions will benefit adjacent koa forest managed by the State (Kipahulu Forest Reserve (FR)). (2) Continue nonnative plant control, not only to improve their pasturelands, but to benefit adjacent conservation lands (Haleakala National Park (HNP) and Kipahulu FR) by serving as a buffer area. (3) Fence areas dominated by native vegetation on Kaupo Ranch lands, with some fencing already completed in cooperation with HNP and Nuu Mauka Ranch. (4) Fence some of their coastal lands and control feral goats.
In addition, Kaupo Ranch has been a long time cooperator with HNP, providing access to the park's Kaupo Gap hiking trail across their private lands. This trail extends from the park's boundary near the summit of Haleakala through Kaupo Ranch lands to the coast. The Ranch was also a cooperator with the Service in the creation of Nuu Makai Wetland Reserve, contributing 87 ac(35 ha) of their ranch lands in the coastal area to support landscape-scale wetland protection. In addition, Kaupo Ranch participated in the construction of an ungulate exclusion fence on the upper portion of their lands, bordering HNP, that protects 50 ac (20 ha) of native montane dry forest habitat (Southern Haleakala Forest Restoration Project) and acts as a buffer to the lower boundary of the montane mesic ecosystem that provides habitat for forest birds. Additional conservation actions in this fenced area include weed control and outplanting of native plants.
We are considering exclusion of 7,410 ac (2,999 ha) of lands owned or managed by Wailuku Water Company on west Maui, and under management as part of the West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership (WMMWP). Ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Agreements for Wailuku Water Company lands on west Maui provide important conservation benefits for 51 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat, and demonstrate the positive benefits of the conservation partnership that has been established with Wailuku Water Company.
Wailuku Water Company is one of the founding members and a funder of the WMMWP, created in 1998. This partnership serves to protect over 47,000 ac (19,000 ha) of forest and watershed vegetation on the summit and slopes of the west Maui mountains (WMMWP 2013). Management priorities of the watershed partnership are: (1) Feral animal control; (2) nonnative plant control; (3) human activities management; (4) public education and awareness; (5) water and watershed monitoring; and (6) management coordination (WMMWP 2013). Four principal streams, Waihee, Waiehu, Iao, and Waikapu, are part of the watershed area owned by the Wailuku Water
We are considering exclusion of 3,690 ac (1,493 ha) of lands owned by the County of Maui DWS on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. The County of Maui DWS is a founding partner and funder of the WMMWP, which provides for important conservation actions that benefit the Maui Nui species through implementation of the WMMWP management plan on west Maui. The management plans and projects supported by the County of Maui DWS provide for the conservation of 38 plants and the 2 forest birds and their habitat on their lands, and demonstrate their value as a conservation partner.
Maui County DWS provides water to approximately 35,000 customers on Maui and Molokai combined. The DWS is a founding partner and funder of the WMMWP, with the main goal of protection and restoration of west Maui's upland watershed. The Maui County DWS provides financial support to both the Maui and Molokai watershed partnerships, and to other organizations, private landowners, Federal, and State agencies. Conservation actions by Maui County DWS conducted through the WMMWP are also partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Maui County DWS's conservation commitments include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates and removal of invasive nonnative plants; (2) regular monitoring to detect changes in management programs; (3) reduce the threat of fire; and (4) gain community support for conservation programs. In addition, the DWS received funding for installation of an ungulate exclusion fence on the upper portion of their lands on west Maui that protects native habitat and acts as a buffer to the lower boundary of the habitat for plants and the two forest birds. The DWS also received funding in 2010 for feral animal removal from their lands. Other conservation actions in this fenced area include weed control and outplanting of native plants.
We are considering excluding 1,217 ac (492 ha) of lands owned or managed by Kamehameha Schools on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. Kamehameha Schools is an established conservation partner, and has participated the development, implementation, and funding of management plans and projects that benefit the Maui Nui species and other listed species throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In this case, the ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan for Kamehameha Schools' lands on west Maui provide for the conservation of 42 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat.
Kamehameha Schools was established in 1887, through the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop. The trust is used primarily to operate a college preparatory program; however, part of Kamehameha School's mission is to protect Hawaii's environment through recognition of the significant cultural value of the land and its unique flora and fauna. Kamehameha Schools has established a policy to guide the sustainable stewardship of its lands including natural resources, water resources, and ancestral places. Kamehameha Schools is a founder and funder of the WMMWP, and also participates in the watershed partnerships for Oahu, Molokai, Kauai, and the island of Hawaii. Conservation actions conducted by the WMMWP are partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Kamehameha Schools' conservation commitments include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for ungulates after fencing; (3) monitoring of habitat recovery; and (4) continued surveys for rare taxa prior to new fence installations. In addition, Kamehameha Schools participated in the construction of strategic ungulate exclusion fences on the upper elevations of their lands on west Maui, that protect native habitat and act as a buffer to the lower boundary of the lowland mesic, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems. Other conservation actions in this area include weed control and outplanting of native plants. Kamehameha Schools is also conducting voluntary actions to promote the conservation of rare and endangered species and their lowland dry ecosystem habitats on the island of Hawaii, including installing fencing to exclude ungulates, restoring habitat, conducting actions to reduce rodent populations, reestablishing native plant species, and conducting activities to reducing the threat of wildfire.
We are considering exclusion of 3,150 ac (1,275 ha) of lands owned and managed by Makila Land Company on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. The Makila Land Company is an established partner in the WMMWP, and ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan for Makila Land Company lands on west Maui provide for the conservation of 47 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat.
Makila Land Company has set aside upper elevation areas of their property at Puehuehunui and Kauaula on west Maui for conservation and protection of rare dry to mesic forest communities. Makila Land Company is a long-time cooperator with the WMMWP. Conservation actions conducted by the WMMWP are partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Makila Land Company's conservation commitments include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for ungulates after fencing; (3) vegetation monitoring; and (4) allowing surveys for rare taxa by the State and Service's Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP) staff. Much of the area is accessible only by helicopter due to waterfalls and steep terrain. The installation of strategic ungulate exclusion fences on the higher elevation portions of its lands protects native habitat and acts as a buffer to the boundaries of the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystem habitat. Additional conservation actions in these fenced
We are considering exclusion of 46 ac (19 ha) of lands owned or managed by Kahoma Land Company on west Maui, and under management as part of the WMMWP. The ongoing conservation actions through the WMMWP management plan for Kahoma Land Company lands on west Maui provide for the conservation of 25 plants and 2 forest birds and their habitat, and demonstrate their value as a conservation partner.
Kahoma Land Company is a coalition of Maui residents formed in June, 2000, to acquire former sugar cane land adjacent to Kahoma Valley on west Maui. Kahoma Land Company's long-term management goals for this area include development of land tracts, diversified agriculture, and ecotourism ventures. Approximately 690 ac (279 ha) of the coalition's lands are within the WMMWP boundaries between two State Natural Area Reserves, and 46 ac (19 ha) are within proposed critical habitat. Kahoma Land Company is also a current member of the WMMWP. Kahoma Land Company's conservation actions conducted by the WMMWP are partly funded by Service grants through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Its conservation commitments include the following conservation actions: (1) Strategic fencing and removal of ungulates; (2) regular monitoring for ungulates after fencing; (3) monitoring of habitat recovery through vegetation succession analyses; and (4) continued surveys for rare taxa prior to new fence installations. The WMMWP management plan includes actions taken on Kahoma lands to control ungulates, including construction of strategic fencing. Ungulate control checks are currently underway on Kahoma lands, with addition of new check installations. Additional conservation actions in this area include weed control and outplanting of native plants.
We are considering exclusion of 25,413 ac (10,284 ha) of lands from critical habitat, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that are owned by Lanai Resorts, also known as Pulama Lanai (PL) and Castle & Cooke Properties, Inc. (CCPI). Our partnership with PL and CCPI provides significant conservation benefits to 38 plant and 2 Lanai tree snail species on Lanai, as demonstrated by the ongoing conversation efforts on the island, the commitment to develop the Lanai Natural Resources Plan (LNRP), and the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Service and PL and CCPI.
In 2001, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved its department's (Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)) participation in a Lanai watershed management program that included the Service (through a private stewardship grant), the Hawaii Department of Health, and CCPI. In 2002, the Service and CCPI entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for construction of ungulate-proof fence at Lanaihale, intended to prevent entry by ungulates and to protect the watershed and the listed species within the area. The term of the MOA was for 10 years. The fencing of the summit at Lanaihale was planned to be constructed in three stages or “increments.” In 2004, the DLNR also provided funding through the Landowner Incentive Program to the Bishop Museum to remove nonnative plants and outplant and establish a population of more than 500 individuals of
The Service and PL and CCPI signed an expansive MOU on January 26, 2015, with a term that extends through 2028. Among the commitments made by PL and CCPI in this MOU are the following: (1) The completion of a Lanai natural resources plan (LNRP) within 18 months of the date of the agreement. Implementation of the LNRP will include identification of priority ecosystems and species, prioritization of management actions required, and commitment of funding; (2) maintenance and monitoring of the completed existing Lanaihale predator-proof fences; (3) ungulate eradication within the Lanaihale fences and other priority areas as identified in the LNRP; (4) cooperation with, and support of management and monitoring within, TNC's Kanepuu Preserve units; (5) protection of rare plant clusters; (6) Lanai tree snail protection, management, and monitoring; (7) identification of rare species for immediate protective intervention efforts; (8) protection of coastal areas; (9) establishment of nearly 7,000 ac (2,800 ha) of “no development areas” as determined by the LNRP, within which enhancement of overall ecological condition and conservation of listed species will be emphasized; and (10) an overall commitment to ensuring a net conversation benefit for listed species on Lanai. PL and CCPI additionally agree to provide more than $200,000 annually in funding toward achievement of the conservation measures described in the MOU.
Under the terms of the MOU, PL and CCPI are currently developing the LNRP. This plan will include a description of detailed management actions with timelines that will benefit and provide protection for 38 plant species, the two Lanai tree snails, and their habitat on the island of Lanai. The Service is a member of the LNRP planning and implementation team, and will therefore be an active participant in the ongoing conservation efforts on the island of Lanai.
PL has committed to implementing certain protective measures in advance of the LNRP to ensure species conversation. Actions currently being implemented include: (1) Planning and construction of an enclosure for the protection of the two Lanai tree snails; (2) planning, construction, and maintenance of fences around three rare plant populations; (3) out-planting of rare species in protected locations; (4) implementation of bio-security measures to avoid the incursion and spread of invasive species; (5) maintenance of all existing fences; (6) predator control where necessary and appropriate to protect listed species; and (7) identification of other priority actions and sites. These measures are currently underway and being conducted in coordination with the Service.
We are considering exclusion of these non-Federal lands because we believe the exclusion would be likely to result
These specific exclusions will be considered on an individual basis or in any combination thereof. In addition, the final designation may not be limited to these exclusions, but may also consider other exclusions as a result of continuing analysis of relevant considerations (scientific, economic, and other relevant factors, as required by the Act) and the public comment process. In particular, we solicit comments from the public on whether to make the specific exclusions we are considering, and whether there are other areas that are appropriate for exclusion.
The final decision on whether to exclude any area will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment periods and information about the economic impact of the designation.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Farm Service Agency.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a new information collection associated with the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Customer Feedback on FSA Service Delivery. This is a relatively new option for approval that will streamline the timing to implement certain types of surveys and related collection of information. FSA will use the approval to cover the instruments of collection (such as a survey, a window pop-up survey, a focus group, or a comment card) to get customer feedback on FSA service delivery for various programs. This request for approval broadly addresses FSA's need for information about what our customers think of our services so that we can improve service delivery; specific information collection activities will be incorporated into the approval as the need for the information is identified. For example, when we implement a new program and provide information about the services for the program on our Web site, we may provide a voluntary customer service questionnaire about how well the program is working for our customers and specifically within the areas of our customer service.
We will consider comments that we receive by August 10, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Mary Ann Ball at the above address.
Mary Ann Ball, (202) 720-4283.
Abstract: FSA is proposing a new information collection that will provide fast-track approval on feedback instruments for various FSA programs. This is a relatively new option for approval that will streamline the timing to implement certain types of surveys and related collection of information. This notice and related request for approval lays the foundation for approving our plans to collect information to improve service delivery across all FSA activities. As the need for a specific information collection activity is identified, under this fast track approval process, FSA will be able to submit the request directly to OMB for approval and the information for the information collection and related burden will be incorporated into the overall approval. For example, when we implement a new program and provide information about the services for the program on our Web site, we may provide a voluntary customer service questionnaire about how well the program is working for our customers and specifically within the areas of our customer service. The information collection activity provides a means to gather qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, and that is consistent with FSA's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean, information, generally from customers, that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions based on experiences with FSA service delivery, but such information does not include statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population. The qualitative feedback will:
• Provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations,
• Provide an early warning of issues with service, and
• Focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services.
The collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between FSA and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on FSA's services will be unavailable.
FSA will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• The collections are targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of FSA;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful qualitative information. It will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. The qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data usage requires more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hours is “estimated average time per responses” times “total annual responses.”
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.
Respondents: Individuals and Households; Businesses; and Organizations; State; Local, or Tribal government.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to re-establish the Recreation Resource Advisory Committees and call for nominations.
The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) intends to re-establish the charter for the Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (Recreation RACs) pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which passed into law as part of the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-447) on December 8, 2004. The Recreation RACs operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463) and functions in the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, Eastern, Southern Regions of the Forest Service and the State of Colorado. The purpose of the Recreation RACs is to provide advice and recommendations on recreation fees to both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as appropriate. The Secretary has determined that the work of the Recreation RACs is in the public interest and relevant to the duties of the Department of Agriculture. Therefore, the Secretary continuously seeks nominations to fill vacancies on the Recreation RACs. Additional information concerning the Recreation RACs can be found by visiting the Recreation RACs Web site at:
Nominations must be received on or before July 27, 2015. Nominations must contain a completed application packet that includes the nominee's name, resume, and completed Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information. The packages must be sent to the addresses below.
Regional Forest Contacts for the Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (Recreation RACs):
Julie Cox, Recreation RAC Coordinator, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 334, Portland, Oregon 97205; or by phone at (503) 808-2984, or by email at
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), signed in December 2004, directs the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, or both to establish Recreation RACs, or use existing advisory committees to perform the duties of Recreation RACs, in each State or region for Federal recreation lands and waters managed by the Forest Service or the BLM. These committees make recreation fee program recommendations on implementing or eliminating standard amenity fees; expanded amenity fees; and noncommercial, individual special recreation permit fees; expanding or limiting the recreation fee program; and fee-level changes. The REA grants flexibility to Recreation RACs by stating that the Secretaries:
• May have as many additional Recreation RACs in a State or region as the Secretaries consider necessary;
• Shall not establish a Recreation RAC in a State if the Secretaries determine, in consultation with the Governor of the State, that sufficient interest does not exist to ensure that participation on the committee is balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; or
• May use a resource advisory committee established pursuant to another provision of law and in accordance with that law.
The Forest Service and BLM elected to jointly use existing BLM RACs in the states of Arizona, Idaho, the Dakotas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The Forest Service also manages Recreation RACs for the Forest Service Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, Eastern and Southern Regions and for the State of Colorado. The Forest Service is using an existing advisory board for the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. In addition, the Governors of three states—Alaska, Nebraska and Wyoming—requested that their states be exempt from the Recreation RAC requirement, and the Secretary concurred with the exemptions.
The Recreation RACs consists of not more than 11 members. The members appointed to the Recreation RACs will be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented, functions to be performed, and will represent a broad array of expertise and relevancy to a membership category. The Recreation RACs composition is as follow:
(1) Five persons who represent recreation users and that include, as appropriate, persons representing—
(a) Winter motorized recreation such as snowmobiling;
(b) Winter nonmotorized recreation such as snowshoeing, cross-country and downhill skiing, and snowboarding;
(c) Summer motorized recreation such as motorcycling, boating, and off-highway vehicle driving;
(d) Summer nonmotorized recreation such as backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, canoeing, and rafting; and
(e) Hunting and fishing.
(2) Three persons who represent interest groups that include, as appropriate—
(a) Motorized outfitters and guides;
(b) Nonmotorized outfitters and guides; and
(c) Local environmental groups.
(3) Three persons who are—
(a) State tourism official representing the State;
(b) A representative of affected Indian tribes; and
(c) A representative of affected local government interests.
In the event a vacancy arises, the Secretary may appointment replacements for members in each of the three membership categories. If an appropriate replacement is unavailable, nominees will be sough through an open and public process and submitted to the Secretary for vetting, approval, and appointment. The Chairperson, of each Recreation RAC, shall be selected by majority vote of the Recreation RAC from among its members for a period of time as determined by the Recreation RAC. A Co-Chairperson may be assigned, especially to facilitate his or her transition to become the Chairperson in the future. The Forest Service Regional Foresters or designee for each identified Recreation RAC shall serve as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) under Sections 10(e) and (f) of FACA.
The Recreation RACs members serve 3-year terms and shall reside within the Region(s) and State in which the committee is organized.
The appointment of members to the Recreation RACs will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the vacancies listed above. To be considered for membership, nominees must—
1. Identify what vacancy they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that vacancy;
2. State why they want to serve on the committee and what they can contribute;
3. Show their past experience in working successfully as part of a working group on forest management activities;
4. Complete Form AD-755, you may contact the persons above or from the following Web site:
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Recreation RACs. To ensure that the recommendations of the Recreation RACs have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Departments, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Juneau, Alaska. Attendees may also participate via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Additional information relating to the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meetings will be held in-person and via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, August 4, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. AKST
• Wednesday, August 5, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. AKST
• Thursday, August 6, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. AKST
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Centennial Hall Convention Center, 101 Egan Drive, Juneau, Alaska. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled
Chalonda Jasper, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-260-9400, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to provide:
1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,
2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,
3. Dialogue with key Forest Service personel and stakeholders from Region 10, the Alaska Region, regarding the land management plan revision and plan amendment processes currently underway in the region,
4. Hearing public comments, and
5. Administrative tasks.
This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by July 27, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Chalonda Jasper, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104, or by email at
U.S. Census Bureau, 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 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)).
To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.
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(s) and instructions should be directed to Richard Hough, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-7K149, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, (301) 763-4823 (or via the internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), plans to conduct the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) for the 2015-2017 survey years. The BRDIS covers all domestic for-profit businesses that have 5 or more paid employees and are classified in certain industries. The BRDIS provides the only comprehensive data on R&D costs and detailed expenses by type and industry.
The Census Bureau has conducted an R&D survey since 1957 (the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) from 1957-2007 and BRDIS from 2008-present), collecting primarily financial information on the systematic work companies undertake to discover new knowledge or use existing knowledge to develop new or improved goods and services. The 2015-2017 BRDIS will continue to collect the following types of information:
• R&D expense based on accepted accounting standards.
• Worldwide R&D of domestic companies.
• Business segment detail.
• R&D-related capital expenditures.
• Detailed data about the R&D workforce.
• R&D strategy and data on the potential impact of R&D on the market.
• R&D directed to application areas of particular national interest.
• Data measuring innovation, intellectual property protection activities and technology transfer.
The BRDIS utilizes a booklet instrument that facilitates the collection of information from various contacts within each company who have the best understanding of the concepts and definitions being presented as well as access to the information necessary to provide the most accurate response. The sections of the booklet correspond to areas within the company and currently include: A company information section that includes detailed innovation questions; a financial section focused on company R&D expenses; a human resources section; an R&D strategy and management section; an IP and technology transfer section; and a section focused on R&D that is funded or paid for by third parties. A web instrument is also available to respondents. The web instrument incorporates Excel spreadsheets that are provided to facilitate the electronic collection of information from various areas of the companies. Respondents have the capability to download the
Research, development and innovation are important to competitiveness in today's economy, and domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government analyze and cite data from the BRDIS. Among the federal government users are the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). BEA includes R&D in the system of national accounts that measures the economic well-being of the country. BRDIS data are key inputs into these accounts, which feed into the calculation of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The White House, in 2006, issued the American Competitiveness Initiative to “increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” In support of this initiative and in response to legislative mandates, data on R&D are delivered to OSTP, primarily in the biennial National Science Board report Science and Engineering Indicators. Also, the National Science Foundation (NSF) produces a series of publications containing R&D data including the National Patterns of R&D Resources series, the S&E State Profile series, and the annual Business R&D and Innovation series. Special reports and other publications are also prepared.
The Census Bureau will use a paperless strategy for the standard form (BRDI-1). Respondents will be mailed a letter referring them to the Census Bureau's Business Help Site where they can complete the questionnaire online. They can also obtain a PDF version of the questionnaire or they can request a paper form be mailed to them. The screener is a mail out/mail back survey form (BRDI-1(S)); a Web-based collection option also will be available. Companies will be asked to respond within 60 days of the initial mail out.
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 Economic Analysis, 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 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.
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 email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone: (202) 606-9591; or via email at
The Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (BE-15) obtains sample data on the financial structure and operations of foreign-owned U.S. business enterprises. The data are needed to provide reliable, useful, and timely measures of foreign direct investment in the United States to assess its impact on the U.S. economy. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in nonbenchmark years from similar data reported in the BE-12 benchmark survey, which is conducted every five years. The data collected include balance sheets; income statements; property, plant, and equipment; employment and employee compensation; merchandise trade; sales of goods and services; taxes; and research and development activity. In addition, several data items are collected by state, including employment and property, plant, and equipment.
No changes to the survey forms or reporting requirements are proposed.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail in March of each year; responses covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year are due by May 31 (or by June 30 for respondents that file using BEA's eFile system). Reports are required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign person has at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated business enterprise, or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in the BE-15 forms and instructions. Entities required to report
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system for use in reporting on the BE-15 annual survey forms. In addition, BEA posts all its survey forms and reporting instructions on its Web site (
Potential respondents of the BE-15 are selected from those U.S. business enterprises that were required to report on the 2012 BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, along with those U.S. business enterprises that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The BE-15 is a sample survey, as described; universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (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 included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 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 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.
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 email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone: (202) 606-9591; or via email at
The Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (BE-11) obtains sample data on the financial structure and operations of U.S. parents and their foreign affiliates. The data are needed to provide reliable, useful, and timely measures of U.S. direct investment abroad to assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in nonbenchmark years from similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is conducted every five years. The data collected include balance sheets; income statements; property, plant, and equipment; employment and employee compensation; merchandise trade; sales of goods and services; taxes; and research and development activity.
The survey, as proposed, incorporates two changes that were made to the 2014 BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, and five new proposed changes. The following two questions that were added to the 2014 benchmark survey will be added to the BE-11 survey: (1) A question to collect the city in which each foreign affiliate is located; and (2) for majority-owned foreign affiliates with assets, sales, or net income greater than $300 million, a question to collect data on cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet. Other proposed changes are: (1) Two items will be added to the balance sheet section for the U.S. reporter: (i) Equity investments in foreign affiliates, and (ii) all other assets; (2) a question will be added to collect the form of organization of the U.S. reporter; (3) a question will be added to collect expenditures for research and development performed by new foreign affiliates with assets, sales, or net income between $25 million and $60 million; (4) a question will be added to the Claim for Not Filing form to collect the names and BEA ID numbers of any foreign affiliates for which BEA requested a filing but which did not meet the filing criteria; and (5) the BE-11E (abbreviated) sample form for foreign affiliates will be eliminated. The exemption level for reporting on the proposed survey is unchanged from the 2013 BE-11 survey.
BEA contacts potential respondents by mail in March of each year; responses covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year are due by May 31. Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise, or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise, and that
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system for use in reporting on the BE-11 annual survey forms. In addition, BEA posts all its survey forms and reporting instructions on its Web site (
Potential respondents of the BE-11 are selected from those U.S. parents that reported owning foreign business enterprises in the 2014 BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, along with entities that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The BE-11 is a sample survey, as described; universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (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 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, 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 10, 2015.
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 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is a multilateral arms control treaty that seeks to achieve an international ban on chemical weapons (CW). The CWC prohibits, the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons. This collection implements the following provision of the treaty:
Schedule 1 notification and report: Under Part VI of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to notify the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international organization created to implement the CWC, at least 30 days before any transfer (export/import) of Schedule 1 chemicals to another State Party. The United States is also required to submit annual reports to the OPCW on all transfers of Schedule 1 Chemicals.
End-Use Certificates: Under Part VIII of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to obtain End-Use Certificates for transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals to Non-States Parties to ensure the transferred chemicals are only used for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
Submitted electronically or on paper.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.
Estimated Time Per Response: 36 minutes.
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
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.
On September 24, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Luis Armando Collins-Avila (“Collins-Avila”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Collins-Avila knowingly and willfully attempted to export and caused to be exported from the United States to Mexico 6,000 rounds of ammunition which comprised of 3,000 rounds of 7.62 x 39 caliber ammunition; 2,000 rounds of 9 mm caliber ammunition; and 1,000 rounds of .38 Super caliber ammunition, which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the United states Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Collins-Avila was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and fined a $200 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Collins-Avila's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Collins-Avila to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has received and reviewed a submission from Collins-Avila.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Collins-Avila's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Collins-Avila's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Collins-Avila had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
John Conniff, 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) 482-1009.
On February 2, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Pursuant to a request from M&B Metal Products Company, Inc., Innovative Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger, and US Hanger Company, LLC (collectively, Petitioners), the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department published the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 5, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Effective date: June 10, 2015.
Joseph Shuler or Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
Following the
On March 10, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from April 4, 2015 to May 4, 2015, as permitted by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
On January 26, 2015, we received case briefs from Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland, or the petitioner), Husteel, and HYSCO.
The merchandise subject to the order is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: 2012-2013,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), and which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we have made certain adjustments to define the universe of Husteel's U.S. sales.
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
For assessment purposes, Husteel and HYSCO reported the name of the importer of record and the entered value for all of their sales to the United States during the period of review (POR). Accordingly, for each respondent, we calculated importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Husteel and HYSCO for which they did not
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Husteel and HYSCO will be equal to the respective weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established pursuant to a court decision.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
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).
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
This collection serves as a family of forms for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) dealer reporting, including purchases of HMS from domestic fishermen, and the import, export, and/or re-export of HMS, including federally managed tunas, sharks, and swordfish.
Transactions covered under this collection include purchases of Atlantic HMS from domestic fishermen; and the import/export of all bluefin tuna (BFT), frozen bigeye tuna (BET), southern bluefin tuna (SBT) or swordfish (SWO), regardless of geographic area of origin. This information is used to monitor the harvest of domestic fisheries, and/or track international trade of internationally managed species.
The domestic dealer reporting covered by this collection includes weekly electronic landing reports and negative reports (
International trade tracking programs are required by both the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) to account for all international trade of covered species. The U.S. is a member of ICCAT and required by ATCA to promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations. These programs require that a statistical document (SD) or catch document (CD) accompany each export from and import to a member nation, and that a re-export certificate (RXC) accompany each re-export. The international trade reporting requirements covered by this collection include implementation of CD, SD, and RXC trade tracking programs for BFT, frozen BET, and SWO. U.S. regulations implementing ICCAT SD and CD programs require SDs and CDs for international transactions of the covered species from all ocean areas, so Pacific imports and exports must also be accompanied by SDs and CDs. Since there are SD programs in place under other international conventions (
Dealers who internationally trade SBT are required to participate in a trade tracking program to ensure that imported Atlantic and Pacific BFT will not be intentionally mislabeled as “southern bluefin” to circumvent reporting requirements. This action is authorized under ATCA, which provides for the promulgation of regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. In addition to SD, CD, and RXC requirements, this collection includes biweekly reports to complement trade tracking SDs by summarizing SD data and collecting additional economic information.
The one-time request for email addresses has been removed.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The 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).
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Regulations at 50 CFR 635.4 require that vessels participating in commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and dealers purchasing Atlantic HMS from a vessel obtain a Federal permit issued by NMFS. Regulations at 50 CFR 300.182 require that individuals entering for consumption, exporting, or re-exporting consignments of bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna, swordfish, or frozen bigeye tuna obtain an HMS International Trade Permit (ITP) from NMFS. This action addresses the renewal of permit applications currently approved under PRA 0648-0327, including both vessel and dealer permits. Vessel permits include Atlantic Tunas (except Longline
The primary reason for the revision of this information collection is to reflect that Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permits have been removed from this collection. Instead, those permits were combined with the information collection for the Greater Atlantic Region Federal Fisheries Initial Permit Application form, which is covered under OMB Control No. 0648-0202. Thus, the burden and costs associated with renewal and issuance of an initial HMS Squid Trawl permit are no longer applicable to this collection of information. In addition, an International Maritime Organization (IMO) number must now be applied for by those not already in possession of one.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application; correction.
On May 27 2015, a notice was published in the
Amy Sloan or Brendan Hurley, (301) 427-8401.
The notice for File No. 19108 on May 27, 2015 (80 FR 30212) indicated that incidental harassment of northern fur seals (
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 2015. 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 issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2015 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on July 23, August 13, and September 10, 2015.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on July 9, July 16, August 6, August 11, September 3, and September 24, 2015.
See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Panama City Beach, FL; Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Rosenberg, TX.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Kitty Hawk, NC; Ronkonkoma, NY; Gulfport, MS, Key Largo, FL; Corpus Christi, TX; and Manahawkin, NJ.
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 110 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
1. July 23, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 7115 Coastal Palms Boulevard, Panama City, FL 32408.
2. August 13, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 999 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.
3. September 10, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 3312 Vista Drive, Rosenberg, TX 77471.
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 208 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 9, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
2. July 16, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 3485 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.
3. August 6, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 9515 US 49, Gulfport, MS 39503.
4. August 11, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.
5. September 3, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Embassy Suites, 4337 South Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78411.
6. September 24, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 West, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
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
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List.
This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service from the Procurement List previously provided by such agency.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 3/20/2015 (80 FR 14973); 4/3/2015 (80 FR 18216-18217); 4/24/2015 (80 FR 22977) and 5/1/2015 (80 FR 24905-24906), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to furnish the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:
On 4/24/2015 (80 FR 22977), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletion from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List:
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) has prepared the ROD for the FEIS for the disposal and reuse of NASJRB Willow Grove Pennsylvania. The DoN is required to close NASJRB Willow Grove per Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended in 2005. The ROD was prepared by the DoN.
Director, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program Management Office East, 4911 Broad Street, Building 679, Philadelphia, PA 19112-1303, telephone 215-897-4900, fax 215-897-4902, email:
The complete text of the ROD is available on the Navy BRAC Program Management Office Web site at
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 10, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Craig Pooler, 202-502-7640.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), due to an unanticipated event. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been requested by June 4, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Colleen McGinnis, (202) 377-4330.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
1. By letter filed March 3, 2015, Ampersand Chasm Falls Hydro LLC informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Chateaugay Chasm Project, FERC No. 3230, originally issued June 15, 1981,
2. Ampersand Chasm Falls Hydro LLC is now the exemptee of the Chateaugay Chasm Project, FERC No. 3230. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Ian Chow, Project Manager, Ampersand Chasm Falls Hydro LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to Eastern Research Group, Inc., in accordance with the CBI regulations. Eastern Research Group, Inc., has been awarded a multiple contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Eastern Research Group, Inc., to fulfill the obligations of this contract.
Eastern Research Group, Inc., will be given access to this information on or before June 15, 2015.
Mario Steadman, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-8338; email address:
This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number
Under Contract No. EP-W-15-006, Eastern Research Group, Inc., will provide analytical, technical, and administrative support services for the Office of Civil Enforcement (OCE) other EPA offices, regions, states, U.S. Territories, U.S. international border areas, and other agencies and organizations. The contractor will submit all work products for review and approval to the appropriate personnel at EPA prior to its preparation and issuance in draft or final, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and directions in the work assignment and technical directives. EPA will review all products prepared by the contractor and make all final determinations. The contractor will not make any decision for the Agency nor develop EPA policy. In no event will the contractor provide legal services or offer any legal interpretations under this contract without the prior written approval of EPA, Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the OCE.
This contract involves no subcontractors. OPP has determined that it involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under the contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), this contract with Eastern Research Group, Inc., prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle information in accordance with the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request for amendments by registrants to terminate uses in certain pesticide registrations. FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request in the
Unless a request is withdrawn by July 10, 2015 for registrations for which the registrant requested a waiver of the 180-day comment period, EPA expects to issue orders terminating these uses. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked no later than July 10, 2015. Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015, for those registrations where the 180-day comment period has been waived.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0317, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Mark Hartman, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-5440; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to terminate uses in certain pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in Table 1 of this unit by registration number, product name, active ingredient, and specific uses terminated.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, EPA expects to issue orders terminating all of these uses. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a use should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 30-day period.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for use termination must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meetings.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a series of teleconference meetings of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). The NEEAC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions and policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the Act). 20 U.S.C. 5508(b).
The purpose of this teleconference(s) is to discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the council in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental education.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold a public teleconference on Thursday, June 18th, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer,
Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of products containing the pesticide listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a February 11, 2015
The cancellations are effective January 1, 2018.
Rich Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8115; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0577, is available at
This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the February 11, 2015
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of diclofop-methyl registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 are hereby canceled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be considered a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
EPA's existing stocks policy published in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The effective date of this cancellation is January 1, 2018. The cancellation order that is the subject of this notice includes the following existing stock provisions:
The registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until January 1, 2018. Persons other than the registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until exhausted. Use of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. may continue until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Arkansas is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. Arkansas has adopted the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) by reference under Sections I.B, V.A and VII of the
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 10, 2015 to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 6 address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by July 10, 2015, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on July 10, 2015. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for
For further information contact Evelyn Rosborough, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7515, facsimile (214) 665-6490, or email:
Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients (AI) not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021 and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer Mclain, Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
7 U.S.C. 136
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at
A direct loan to a United Kingdom-based company to support the procurement of U.S. rocket launch services and U.S. launch and in-orbit insurance services.
The U.S. rocket launch services and U.S. launch and in-orbit insurance services will be used to launch and insure the United Kingdom-based company's communications satellite.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Guarantor(s): Inmarsat Global Limited, Inmarsat Leasing (Two) Limited; Inmarsat Ventures Limited; Inmarsat Group Limited; Europasat Limited, Inmarsat Launch Company Limited; Inmarsat Solutions (Canada) Inc.; Inmarsat Solutions B.V.; and Inmarsat S.A.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Piedmont Community Bank, Gray, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Piedmont Community Bank on October 14, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
June 8, 2015
10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 18, 2015.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection 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.
Regulation E applies to all financial institutions. In addition, certain provisions in Regulation E apply to entities that are not financial institutions, including those that act as service providers or automated teller machine (ATM) operators, merchants and other payees that engage in electronic check conversion (ECK) transactions, the electronic collection of returned item fees, or preauthorized transfers, issuers and sellers of gift cards and gift certificates, and remittance transfer providers.
The meeting announced below concerns Evaluating Innovative and Promising Strategies to prevent Suicide among Middle-Aged Men, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), RFA-CE-15-004, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
12:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, June 30, 2015 (CLOSED)
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, HHS.
Notice of a Computer Matching Program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a), as amended, OCSE is publishing notice of a computer matching program between OCSE and state agencies administering the Unemployment Compensation program.
On June 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a report of a Computer Matching Program to 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 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act. HHS invites interested parties to review and submit written data, comments or arguments to the agency about the matching program until July 10, 2015.
Interested parties may submit written comment on this notice to Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447. Comments received will be available for public inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.
Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447, 202-401-5439.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, provides for certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other federal, state, or local government records. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs.
2. Provide notification to applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching.
3. Verify information produced by such matching program before reducing, making a final denial of, suspending, or terminating an individual's benefits or payments.
4. Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
5. Furnish reports about the matching program to Congress and OMB.
6. Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Board of any federal agency participating in a matching program.
This matching program meets these requirements.
The participating agencies are the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is the “source agency,” and state agencies administering the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program, which are the “non-federal agencies.”
The primary purpose of the matching program is to provide new hire and quarterly wage information from OCSE's National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to state agencies administering UC programs to assist in establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, or recipients of, UC benefits. The state agencies administering the UC programs may also use the NDNH information for the secondary purpose of administration of its tax compliance function.
The authority for conducting the matching program is contained in Section 453(j)(8) of the Social Security Act. (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(8)).
The categories of individuals involved in the matching program are individuals who receive or have applied for UC benefits. The system of records maintained by OCSE from which records will be disclosed for the purpose of this matching program is the “OCSE National Directory of New Hires,” No. 09-80-0381, last published in the
The computer matching agreement will be effective and matching activity may commence the later of the following:
(1) 30 days after this Notice is published in the
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, HHS.
Notice of a Computer Matching Program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a), as amended, OCSE is publishing notice of a computer matching program between OCSE and state agencies administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
On June 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a report of a Computer Matching Program to 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 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by 5 U.S.C 552a(r) of the Privacy Act. HHS invites interested parties to review and submit written data, comments, or arguments to the
Interested parties may submit written comment on this notice to Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447. Comments received will be available for public inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.
Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447, 202-401-5439.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, provides for certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving federal benefits. The law governs the use of computer matching by federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other federal, state, or local government records. The Privacy Act requires agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs.
2. Provide notification to applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching.
3. Verify information produced by such matching program before reducing, making a final denial of, suspending, or terminating an individual's benefits or payments.
4. Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
5. Furnish reports about the matching program to Congress and the OMB.
6. Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Board of any federal agency participating in a matching program.
This matching program meets these requirements.
The participating agencies are the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), which is the “source agency,” and state agencies administering the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, which are the “non-federal agencies.”
The primary purpose of the matching program is to provide new hire, quarterly wage, and unemployment insurance information from OCSE's National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to state agencies administering TANF to verify the eligibility of adult TANF recipients and applicants and, if ineligible, to take such action as may be authorized by law and regulation. The state agencies administering TANF may also use the NDNH information for the secondary purpose of updating the applicants and recipients' reported participation in work activities and updating contact information maintained by the state agencies administering TANF.
The authority for conducting the matching program is contained in section 453(j)(3) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(3).
The categories of individuals involved in the matching program are adult members of households that receive or have applied for TANF benefits. The system of records maintained by OCSE from which records will be disclosed for the purpose of this matching program is the “OCSE National Directory of New Hires” (NDNH), No. 09-80-0381, last published in the
The computer matching agreement will be effective and matching activity may commence the later of the following:
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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.
While some evaluations suggest that IDAs help low-income families save, rigorous experimental research is limited. Few studies have focused on AFI-funded IDAs, and few have tested alternative design features.
The Assets for Independence Evaluation is the first experimental evaluation of IDA projects operating under the Assets for Independence Act, and will contribute importantly to understanding the effects of IDA project participation on project participants. The evaluation was launched in fall 2011 in two sites, with the random assignment of AFI-eligible cases to program and control groups. OMB approved three data collection efforts related to this project in October 2012, including approval of a baseline survey, 12-month follow-up survey, and implementation study protocols.
This
Data collection activities to submit in a future information collection request include a third follow-up survey for AFI Evaluation study participants approximately 60 months after study enrollment.
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 comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Office of Community Services, ACF, HHS.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS), announces the State Median Income Estimates for a Four-Person Household for the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2016 State Median Income Estimates for Use in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS), Division of Energy Assistance (DEA) announces the estimated median income of four-person households in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for FFY 2016 (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016).
These estimates become effective at any time between the date of this publication and the later of (1) October 1, 2015; or (2) the beginning of a grantee's fiscal year.
Peter Edelman, Program Analyst, Office of Community Services, 5th Floor West, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447. Telephone: 202-401-5292; Email:
This notice announces to grantees of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) the estimated median income of four-person households in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for FFY 2016 (October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016). LIHEAP grantees that choose to base their income eligibility criteria on these state median income (SMI) estimates may adopt these estimates (up to 60 percent) on their date of publication in the
Sixty percent of SMI for each LIHEAP grantee, as annually established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one of the income criteria that LIHEAP grantees may use in determining a household's income eligibility for LIHEAP. The last time LIHEAP was authorized was by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, which was enacted on August 8, 2005. This authorization expired on September 30, 2007, and reauthorization remains pending.
The SMI estimates in this notice are 3-year estimates derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Census Bureau).
For additional information about the ACS state median income estimates, including the definition of income and the derivation of medians see
These SMI estimates, like those derived from any survey, are subject to two types of errors: (1) Non-sampling Error, which consists of random errors that increase the variability of the data and non-random errors that consistently shift the data in a specific direction; and (2) Sampling Error, which consists of the error that arises from the use of probability sampling to create the sample. For additional information about the accuracy of the ACS SMI estimates, see
In the state-by-state listing of SMI and 60 percent of SMI for a four-person family for FFY 2016, LIHEAP grantees must regard “family” to be the equivalent of “household” with regards to setting their income eligibility criteria. This listing describes the method for adjusting SMI for households of different sizes, as specified in regulations applicable to LIHEAP (45 CFR 96.85(b)). These regulations were published in the
45 CFR 96.85(b) and 42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(2)(B)(ii).
The Administration for Children and Families is requesting no changes in the electronic collection of data with the Carryover and Reallotment Report, and the Simplified Instructions for Timely Obligations of LIHEAP Funds and Reporting Funds for Carryover and Reallotment. The form clarifies the information being requested and ensures the submission of all the required information. The form facilitates our response to numerous queries each year concerning the amounts of obligated funds. Use of the form is voluntary. Grantees have the option to use another format.
Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, HHS.
Notice.
A Plan developed by the State Council on Developmental Disabilities is required by federal statute. Each State Council on Developmental Disabilities must develop the plan, provide for public comments in the State, provide for approval by the State's Governor, and finally submit the plan on a five-year basis. On an annual basis, the Council must submit a Program Performance Report (PPR) to described the extent to which annual progress is being achieved on the 5 year state plan goals. The PPR will be used by (1) the Council as a planning document to track progress made in meeting state plan goals; (2) the citizenry of the State as a mechanism for monitoring progress and activities on the plans of the Council; (3) the Department as a stewardship tool, for ensuring compliance with the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as one basis for monitoring and providing technical assistance (
Submit written comments on the collection of information by August 10, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by email to:
Allison Cruz, Administration on Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4306, Washington, DC 20201, 202-357-3439.
In compliance with the requirements of section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration on Community Living 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: Allison Cruz, Administration on Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4306, Washington, DC 20201.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed Collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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; (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (e) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection technique comments and or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
56 State Developmental Disabilities Councils.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Related Dystrophinopathies: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment of X-linked Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and related dystrophinopathies.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 10, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Colleen Locicero, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1114.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Related Dystrophinopathies: Developing Drugs for Treatment.”
DMD and other dystrophinopathies result from genetic mutations in the dystrophin gene that decrease levels of dystrophin and/or cause dysfunction of the dystrophin protein, leading to muscle degeneration, including cardiac and respiratory muscles, and greatly decreased life expectancy. There remains a high level unmet medical need for effective drug treatments for DMD and other dystrophinopathies. This draft guidance addresses FDA's current thinking regarding the clinical development program and clinical trial designs for drugs to support an indication for the treatment of dystrophinopathies. Development of this draft guidance was greatly facilitated by the efforts of Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy to coordinate a consortium of stakeholders including patients, parents and caregivers, clinicians, academic experts, and industry representatives in producing a proposed draft guidance with extensive background information about DMD. That stakeholder proposal was submitted to FDA and made available for comment through a
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing drugs for the treatment of DMD. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that Ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride (HCl)) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 milligrams (mg) in 50 milliliters (mL), single intravenous (IV) dose, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The Agency will not accept or approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose.
Emily Helms Williams, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6280, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3381.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show among other things that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (21 CFR 314.161). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, is the subject of NDA 021915, held by Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter), and initially approved on December 27, 2006. The product is indicated for prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients. It was approved under the pathway described by section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)). Baxter's application relied in part on FDA's finding of safety and effectiveness for ZOFRAN, NDA 020007, held by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
In September 2011, FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication noting concerns that the 32 mg single IV dose of ZOFRAN, NDA 020007, and generic versions of that product could increase the risk of abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart, which could result in a potentially fatal abnormal heart rhythm. Specifically, the Agency noted that the 32 mg single IV dose of ondansetron could cause QT prolongation, which can lead to a serious and sometimes fatal heart rhythm called Torsades de Pointes. At FDA's request, GSK conducted a study to assess that risk. That study identified a significant QT prolongation effect in connection with the 32 mg single IV dose of Ondansetron. Based on this data, FDA approved GSK's supplemental application to remove the 32 mg single IV dose information from the labeling for ZOFRAN and has worked with manufacturers of all 32 mg, single IV dose ondansetron products to have them removed from the market.
In a letter dated September 5, 2012, Baxter notified FDA that Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. In a letter dated November 27, 2012, Baxter requested withdrawal of NDA 021915 for Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose. In a contemporaneous notice, FDA is announcing that it is withdrawing approval of NDA 021915.
We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, from sale. We have also evaluated relevant literature and data. FDA has determined under §§ 314.161 and 314.162(a)(2), that Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety.
Accordingly, the Agency will remove Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, from the list of drug products published in the Orange Book. FDA will not accept or approve ANDAs that refer to this drug product.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
On April 23, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0791. The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Request for comments; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the comment period related to the use of in vitro methods as a mechanism for assessing the in vivo product bioequivalence (BE) of nonsystemically absorbed drug products intended for use in veterinary species, published in the
Submit either electronic or written comments by August 10, 2015.
Submit electronic comments to
John Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, HFV-170, MPN2, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0845.
In the
Following publication of the March 18, 2015, notification of public meeting and request for comments, FDA received a request to allow interested persons additional time to comment. The requester asserted that the time period of 60 days was insufficient to respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments and to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent issues.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 10, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) proposes to establish a high quality, probability-based, primarily Web-based, panel of 4,000 tobacco users. The panel will include individuals who can participate in up to 8 studies over a 3-year period to assess consumers' responses to tobacco marketing, warning statements, product labels, and other communications about tobacco products. CTP proposed the establishment of the panel of consumers
First, most existing consumer panels are drawn from convenience samples that limit the generalizability of study findings (Ref. 1). Second, although at least two probability-based panels of consumers exist in the United States, there is a concern that responses to the studies using tobacco users in these panels may be biased due to panel conditioning effects (Refs. 2 and 3). That is, consumers in these panels complete surveys so frequently that their responses may not adequately represent the population as a whole. Panel conditioning has been associated with repeated measurement on the same topic (Ref. 4), panel tenure (Ref. 2), and frequency of the survey request (Ref. 3). This issue is of particular concern for tobacco users who represent a minority of the members in the panels, and so may be more likely to be selected for participation in experiments and/or surveys related to tobacco products. Third, a key benefit of the Web panel approach is that the surveys can include multimedia, such as images of tobacco product packages, tobacco advertising, new and existing warning statements and labels, and potential reduced harm claims in the form of labels and print advertisements. Establishing a primarily Web-based panel of tobacco users through in-person probability-based recruitment of eligible adults and limiting the number of times individuals participate in tobacco-related studies will result in nationally representative and unbiased data collection on matters of importance for FDA.
With this submission, FDA seeks approval from OMB to establish the Tobacco User Panel, a nationally representative, primarily Web-based panel of 4,000 current tobacco users. Data collection activities will involve pilot testing of panel recruitment and management procedures and systems, mail and in-person household screening, in-person recruitment of tobacco users, enrollment of selected household members, administration of a baseline survey, and panel maintenance surveys, following all required informed consent procedures for panel members. Once the panel is established, panel members will be asked to participate in up to eight experimental and observational studies over the 3-year panel commitment period. The first of these studies (Study 1) is included in this information collection request; approval for the remainder of the studies will appear in future requests. The current request also seeks approval to conduct up to two rounds of cognitive testing of new survey items and up to two focus groups to further refine study protocols, as needed. With this clearance, study investigators will be able to use the OMB approved data collection methods where appropriate to plan and implement the national panel.
The overall purpose of the proposed data collection is to collect information from a representative sample of tobacco users to provide data that may be used to develop and support FDA's policies related to tobacco products, including their labels, labeling, and advertising. Data will be collected from the panel primarily through the use of randomized experimental designs, however, there may be data collected through the use of other methods, such as surveys, interviews, or online group discussions. Given the limitations on the existing Web-based panels, it is important to develop a new panel of tobacco users that balances the need to conduct experiments while limiting the number of tobacco-related studies per year so as to not bias study results.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In the
(Comment) One comment asked FDA for the opportunity to review the data collection plans and instruments including the sample design, data collection methodology, and panel performance evaluation plan.
(Response) All the instruments and background documents including our plan for evaluating panel performance have been uploaded to the docket for easy access. The documents included are the data collection plans and methodology (Supporting Statement Part A), copies of the survey instruments used to screen and recruit panel members, as well as the first experimental or observation study (Study 1), and the proposed sample design (Supporting Statement Part B).
(Comment) One comment asked FDA to provide additional details about the proposed sample design and FDA's approach to issues such as nonresponse of subjects and conditioning effects.
(Response) The proposed sample design is described in detail in Supporting Statement, Part B. Briefly, we propose a multi-stage area sample based on an address-based sampling frame. The probabilities (single, joint, and the overall selection probability) will be measurable at each stage.
The issues of non-response and conditioning effects are real challenges but they should be considered separately from the sample design. These are issues faced in the field once the sample has been selected and contacted. We have proposed several strategies for reducing non-response in the recruitment of panel members, the primary one being in-person recruitment which we believe will lead to significantly larger recruitment rates than we would achieve if we contacted sample members via mail, telephone, or web. We will describe our plans to reduce the non-response bias in future individual studies as part of the OMB submissions for these studies. We consider the issue of conditioning effects as part of our overall panel management plan, which is described in Supporting Statement, Part A.
(Comment) One comment stated that FDA suggests that not every panelist will be eligible to participate in every study to minimize the potential for “conditioning” effects. However, this approach to participation is inconsistent with the requirement that every individual in the population has a non-zero probability of being in the sample. FDA will need to make trade-offs to balance these two interests. FDA could consider drawing data from similar respondents, as long as FDA knows that there are no important hidden differences between the respondents that may affect their responses.
(Response) We will draw the original sample with known, non-zero, and, to the extent possible, equal probabilities. The same will apply to any additional samples drawn for the panel to replace attrition. Furthermore, any subsample drawn from the panel for specific studies will also result in known probabilities of selection. We will derive a strategy of spreading the survey-taking load over all panel members to avoid excessive burden on any single member or group of members. We will implement this strategy by randomly selecting each subsample, but at the same time keeping track of each member's survey-taking activity. As the number and frequency of survey-taking for a given member increases, their probability of selection will decrease, a strategy that we will implement using probability proportion to size sampling. This strategy will lead to known and measurable selection probabilities for each specific subsample.
(Comment) One comment stated FDA should consider, whether in some instances, collecting fresh data from
(Response) Our proposed approach includes replenishment of the sample over time to address attrition from the panel. As such, the panel will include tobacco users with varying tenure lengths on the panel. We will be in a position to restrict a specific study subsample to the more recent panel members, if desired, and more generally, the panel will allow FDA to specify the composition of the sample with respect to tenure.
(Comment) One comment said FDA should consider inclusion of non-tobacco users or users of specific tobacco categories (
(Response) FDA considered including non-tobacco users early in the planning process. However, the planned experimental and observational studies will examine issues specific to the tobacco-using population, especially those with lower socio-economic status. This includes the underlying demographics of users as well as their knowledge, attitudes, practices, behaviors, and reactions to various tobacco-related stimuli. Other existing data sources, including survey panels, support research with non-users. Moreover, limiting the panel to users reduces the overall public burden. Once the panel is firmly established, we may consider its expansion.
(Comment) One comment stated FDA should also consider how well the sample of 4,000 adult tobacco users will support the planned investigations.
(Response) The sample size of 4,000 was chosen after a careful review of, on the one hand, power and subclass analyses requirements, and on the other hand, the budgetary implications. After our careful review, we concluded that a sample size of 4,000 tobacco users represents a good balance, at least for the first iteration of the panel.
We should also mention that the young adult population (aged 18-25) and the low-income population (combined household income less than $30,000) will be oversampled allowing for more in-depth study of these two groups of tobacco users. We also include a screening feature that will result in oversampling of the smokeless tobacco users.
(Comment) One commenter stated that FDA suggests that the approach includes a “3-year panel commitment period”. FDA should consider developing and sharing its plan for keeping or removing panelists. For example, will FDA keep or remove a panelist if he/she decides to quit using tobacco products? Also, how will FDA monitor whether incentives are influencing a panelist's responses or behavior? These are only a few examples of issues that could arise; therefore, a thoughtful panel management plan is needed.
(Response) We agree that a detailed and well-designed panel management plan is needed to make the panel successful. The literature on panel maintenance is growing, but there is still much to be learned about optimal strategies for maintaining a strong and productive panel. Supporting Statement, Part A outlines our plans for panel management, including retention and nonresponse follow-up strategies, planned incentive experiments, monitoring of panel conditioning, and evaluation of the effects of various panel maintenance strategies on substantive responses.
Continual monitoring is planned to study these and other important aspects of the panel's health. We will also keep a close eye on individual panelists, their participation patterns, and their non-response patterns to identify potential problems requiring intervention. FDA considered removing panel members who report they have stopped using tobacco products. Because of recidivism rates, it was decided to retain all enrolled panel members regardless of changes in their tobacco use patterns. Subsampling of panelists may be implemented for specific experimental or observational studies that are intended solely for current users of one or more specific tobacco products.
(Comment) One commenter stated FDA should consider establishing mechanisms to evaluate the performance of the panel as well as the data derived from it. For example, data from the panel on measures such as current or past 30-day cigarette smoking might be compared against the most recent data from national surveys and other published reports.
(Response) We agree that benchmarking the panel sample characteristics—demographic, socioeconomic, and tobacco use—against other national data sources is extremely important. We will continuously check that our panel matches known underlying population characteristics. However, we will also monitor how the panel compares with the target population with respect to known patterns of behavior surrounding tobacco use. Differences will not necessarily suggest problems with the panel but they will stimulate further investigation and explanation.
(Comment) One commenter asked FDA to provide copies of the survey instruments for public comment.
(Response) Copies of the survey instruments used to screen and recruit panel members, as well as the first experimental or observation study (Study 1), are uploaded to the docket.
(Comment) One commenter strongly supports FDA's proposed collection of information. The commenter stated that this panel is of great utility and the proposed probability-based panel will serve as a flexible tool, giving FDA the opportunity to conduct diverse studies.
(Response) FDA agrees with this comment and believes the panel will be a valuable tool for conducting new experimental studies.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The collection burden was estimated using data from timed-readings of each instrument, including the mail and field screeners, enrollment survey, baseline survey, panel maintenance questionnaires, and Study 1 questionnaire.
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of one new drug application (NDA) for Ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride (HCl)) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 milligrams (mg) in 50 milliliters (mL), single intravenous (IV) dose, and four abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for ondansetron HCl and Dextrose in 32 mg single IV doses. The holders of these applications have voluntarily requested that FDA withdraw approval of their applications and have waived their opportunity for a hearing.
Effective June 10, 2015.
Emily Helms Williams, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6280, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3381.
On June 29, 2012, FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication to notify health care professionals that the 32 mg, single IV dose of ondansetron HCl, indicated for prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of emetogenic cancer chemotherapy in adult patients, should be avoided due to the risk of a specific type of irregular heart rhythm called QT interval prolongation, which can lead to Torsades de Pointes, an abnormal, potentially fatal heart rhythm. Subsequently, FDA contacted the holders of the following applications and informed them that the Agency believes that in light of the safety concern associated with ondansetron HCl in the 32 mg, single IV dose, the following drug products should be removed from the market:
As described in this document, the application holders agreed to voluntarily remove their respective 32 mg, single IV dose ondansetron products from the market, and requested that FDA withdraw approval of their respective applications (listed in the preceding table) under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)). On December 4, 2012, FDA issued an updated Drug Safety Communication alerting health care professionals that these products would be removed from the market because of their potential for serious cardiac risks.
Baxter's Ondansetron (ondansetron HCl) Injection, USP in PL 2408 Plastic Container, 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, was approved in NDA 021915 on December 27, 2006. In a letter dated November 27, 2012, Baxter requested withdrawal of NDA 021915 under 21 CFR 314.150(d), and waived its opportunity for a hearing provided under § 314.150(a). In a letter dated September 5, 2012, Baxter notified FDA that the product was being discontinued. In a contemporaneous notice, FDA is announcing its determination that the product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness and that FDA will not accept or approve ANDAs that refer to this drug product.
Hospira's ondansetron HCl Injection 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose was approved in ANDA 077348 on February 1, 2007. In a letter dated January 31, 2013, Hospira requested withdrawal of ANDA 077348 under 21 CFR 314.150(d), and waived its opportunity for a hearing provided under § 314.150(a).
Teva's ondansetron HCl Injection 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose was approved in ANDA 077480 on November 22, 2006. In a letter dated November 20, 2012, Teva requested withdrawal of ANDA 077480 under 21 CFR 314.150(d), and waived its opportunity for a hearing provided under § 314.150(a).
Bedford's ondansetron HCl Injection 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose was approved in ANDA 078291 on April 13, 2009. In a letter dated April 4, 2014, Bedford requested withdrawal of ANDA 078291, under 21 CFR 314.150(d), and waived its opportunity for a hearing provided under § 314.150(a).
Claris's ondansetron HCl Injection 32 mg/50 mL, single IV dose, was approved in ANDA 078308 on March 17, 2008. In a letter dated November 16, 2012, through its U.S. agent, CUSTOpharm, Inc., Claris requested withdrawal of ANDA 078308 under 21 CFR 314.150(d), and waived its opportunity for a hearing provided under § 314.150(a).
Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and 21 CFR 314.150(d), and under authority delegated by the Commissioner to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, approval of the applications listed in the table of this document, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This summary describes the existing information collection at ClinicalTrials.gov, for which an extension is requested; it does not include any changes to the information collection that were proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission that was issued on November 21, 2014 (79 FR 225, Nov. 21, 2014).
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To Submit Comments and For Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: David Sharlip, Office of Administrative and Management Analysis Services, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-9680, or Email your request, including your address to:
Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
Proposed Collection: Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank (NLM), 0925-0586, Expiration
This extension request does not include any changes to the information submission requirements for ClinicalTrials.gov that were proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission that was issued on November 21, 2014 and for which the public comment period closed on March 23, 2015 (79 FR 225, Nov. 21, 2014). The NIH is continuing to review submitted public comments as it prepares the final rule. The NIH will make any corresponding changes to the ClinicalTrials.gov information collection via separate procedure.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. The total estimated annualized cost to respondents is $49,399,851. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 682,535.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301-496-7057; fax: 301-402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will
Technology descriptions follow.
Description of Technology: Available for licensing and commercial development as imaging agents for positron emission tomography of cancer are boramino acid compounds. The inventors showed that mimetics created by substituting the carboxylate group (-COO
Potential Commercial Applications:
• Cancer imaging
• Anti-cancer drug development
Competitive Advantages:
• Fluorene-18 labeling
• Metabolic stability
Development Stage:
• Early-stage
• In vitro data available
• In vivo data available (animal)
Inventors: Xiaoyuan Chen and Zhibo Liu (NIBIB)
Publications:
1. Liu Z, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a high-affinity 18F-trifluoroborate octreotate derivative for somatostatin receptor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;55(9):1499-505. [PMID 24970911]
2. Liu Z, et al. (18)F-trifluoroborate derivatives of [des-arg(10)]kallidin for imaging bradykinin b1 receptor expression with positron emission tomography. Mol Pharm. 2015 Mar 2;12(3):974-82. [PMID 25629412]
Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-135-2015/0—US Provisional Patent Application 62/155,085 filed April 30, 2015
Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP; 301-435-5019 or 301-402-5579;
Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize Boramino Acid Mimetics for Use in Cancer Imaging. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Cecilia Pazman at
Description of Technology: The invention pertains to a technique for enhancing the resolution of images in light sheet microscopy by adding additional enhanced depth-of-focus optical arrangements and high numerical aperture objective lenses. The technique employs an arrangement of three objective lenses and a processor for combining captured images. The image composition utilizes the greater resolving power of the third high numerical aperture objective lens by imaging the light sheet and enhanced depth-of-focus arrangement resulting in improved overall resolution of the light sheet system. The depth of field arrangement could be a simple oscillation of the third objective, a “layer cake,” or cubic phase mask component. Any loss in lateral resolution that results from the depth of field arrangement may be compensated for by deconvolution. In some embodiments, other optics, such as an axicon or annular aperture, can provide extended depth of field.
Potential Commercial Applications:
• High speed imaging
• Fast single cell and cellular dynamics imaging
• Superresolution and single molecule imaging
• 3D single particle tracking
• 3D superresolution imaging in thick samples
Competitive Advantages: Resolution enhancement in light microscopy
Development Stage: In vitro data available
Inventors: Hari Shroff (NIBIB), Yicong Wu (NIBIB), Sara Abrahamsson
Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-232-2014/0—US Application No. 62/054,484 filed September 24, 2014
Related Technology: HHS Reference No. E-078-2011/0
Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP; 301-435-5019 or 301-402-5579;
Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize Resolution Enhancement Technique for Light Sheet Microscopy Systems. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Cecilia Pazman at 301-594-4273 or
Description of Technology: Cryopreservation using liquid nitrogen frozen polyvinyl bags allows for storing cellular materials for extended periods while maintaining their activity and viability. Such bags are commonly used in the clinic to store blood products including blood cells, plasma, hematopoietic stem cells, umbilical cord blood for future uses including transplantation. These materials, typically obtained in limited quantities, may be of great therapeutic value, as is the case of stem cells or cord blood derived cells which can be used to potentially treat a number of diseases. Currently, even if only a small portion of the cryopreserved sample is needed the whole bag must be thawed, wasting much of the sample or rendering the remaining sample susceptible to contamination since it cannot be effectively refrozen or sterilized. The present device meets an unmet need for retrieving a portion of a frozen sample stored in polyvinyl cryopreserved bags, resealing the remainder of the sample and preserving the cryopreserved state and integrity of the rest of the cellular product without compromising viability and sterility.
Potential Commercial Applications:
• Cryopreservation
• Cellular Products
• Hematopoietic stem cells
• Umbilical cord blood
• iPSCs
• Transplantation
• Chronic spinal cord injury
• Neurological disorders
• Cancer immunotherapy
• Cell banking
• Cell replacement therapy
Competitive Advantages:
• Partitioning cryopreserved cell products
• Maintenance of sterility of partitioned product
• Maintenance of viability of partitioned product
• Resealing of cryopreservation bag
• Multiple use of patient derived cellular products
Development Stage: Prototype
Inventors: Richard Childs, Sumithira Vasu, Herb Cullis, PJ Broussard, Kevin
Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-173-2009/0 -
• US Provisional App. 61/175,131
• Int'l App. PCT/US2010/033575
• Canadian App. 2,760,363
• EP App. 10719496.1
• IL App. 216085
• US Patent 8,790,597
• US Patent App. 14/305,578
Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP; 301-435-5019 or 301-402-5579;
Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize Device for Partitioning Cryopreserved Cellular Products. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Cecilia Pazman, Ph.D. at 301-594-4273 or
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing. CBP is proposing to add burden hours for four new collections of information, including Electronic Ocean Export Manifest, Electronic Air Export Manifest, Electronic Rail Export Manifest, and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). There are no changes to the existing forms or collections within this OMB approval. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before July 10, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-day Notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0039, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by July 10, 2015. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The data is collected whenever an individual believes s/he has experienced property loss or damage, a personal injury, or other damages due to the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a TSA employee, and decides to file a Federal tort claim against TSA. Submission of a claim is entirely voluntary and initiated by individuals. The claimants (or respondents) to this collection are typically the traveling public. Currently, claimants file a claim by submitting to TSA a Standard Form 95 (SF-95), which has been approved under OMB control number 1105-0008. Because TSA requires further clarifying information, claimants are asked to complete a Supplemental Information page added to the SF-95. These forms have been approved under OMB control number 1652-0039.
Claim instructions and forms are available through the TSA Web site at
If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA sends the claimant a form requesting: (1) Claimant signature, (2) banking information (routing and account number), and (3) Social Security number (required by the U.S. Treasury for all Government payments to the public pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3325).
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
As part of the Federal government-wide effort to streamline the process of seeking public feedback on service delivery, HUD is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Proposed New Services or Products to seek information on new services and products that may needed by HUD customers.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name, or the FR number shown above, and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Executive Order 12862, entitled “Setting Customer Service Standards,”' requires that Federal agencies provide the highest quality service to their customers by identifying needed services and seeking feedback on offered services. The information proposed to be collected under this notice is designed by HUD to garner qualitative feedback from HUD customers in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery.
In accordance with the Executive Order, the term “customer” means an individual or entity that is directly served by a department or agency. The term “qualitative feedback” refers to information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but does not constitute statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of the study. The collections to be undertaken under this HUD proposed generic collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between HUD and its customers. The collections will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of HUD products and services, help identify where existing products and services may be lacking in some aspects, and whether there are additional products and services that could be offered by HUD. This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
A generic collection, such as HUD is proposing through this notice, would allow HUD to survey its customers to determine whether HUD has identified appropriate eligibility criteria for new products and services under consideration, and correctly identified the categories of customers in need of these products or services. The areas of inquiry anticipated to be surveyed would be those seeking information about the specific customer being surveyed, for example, the public housing agency (PHA), State and local government, private housing provider, nonprofit organizations, or other organization participating in HUD programs. Of the category or categories of program participants surveyed, the survey would inquire about: the demographics of the populations the customer serves; the type of HUD subsidized housing that is provided; energy, other utility, technological, or other infrastructure needs of the housing provided; the need for better access to community assets, such as transportation, financial services, educational services (schools, libraries or computer facilities), and sports and exercise facilities; the availability of any federal, other governmental, and local resources to address identified needs if these resources were made available; and any demonstration of community or governmental support to improve the quality of the housing provided. HUD anticipates the survey will solicit basic information regarding the customer and current or anticipated needs for which brief responses will suffice. However, the survey would provide the opportunity for the customer to present additional information pertaining to these topics that customers may choose to note.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for Student Transportation Form, authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0134. This information collection expires September 30, 2015.
Submit comments on or before August 10, 2015.
You may submit comments on the information collection to: Dr. Joe Herrin, 1951 Constitution Ave., MS-312-SIB, Washington, DC 20245; Fax: (202) 208-3271; Email:
Dr. Joe Herrin, phone: (202) 208-7658.
The BIE is requesting renewal of OMB approval for the Student Transportation Form. The Student Transportation regulations in 25 CFR part 39, subpart G, contain the program eligibility and criteria that govern the allocation of transportation funds. Information collected from the schools will be used to determine the rate per mile. The information collection provides transportation mileage for Bureau-funded schools, which determines the allocation of transportation funds. This information is collected using a Web-
The BIE 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 our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0161. This information collection expires September 30, 2015.
Submit comments on or before August 10, 2015.
You may submit comments on the information collection LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-4696; email:
LeRoy Gishi, (202) 513-7711.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is currently in the process of revising the regulations governing the Indian Reservations Roads (IRR) program. The proposed rule was published in the
This collection allows Federally recognized tribal governments to participate in the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program as defined in 25 U.S.C. 202. The information collection determines the allocation of the IRR program funds to Indian tribes as described in 25 U.S.C. 202(b).
The BIA 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 our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. 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, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park 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. 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.
You must submit comments on or before August 10, 2015.
Send your comments on the IC to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive (Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242), Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
To request additional information about this IC, contact Madonna L. Baucum, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive (Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242), Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
The National Park Service Act of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1,
• Park name, receiving station (if appropriate), and date item was lost or found;
• Name, address, city, state, zip code, email address, and contact phone numbers (cell and home);
• Type of item, detailed description of item, and location where the item was last seen or found;
• Photograph of item (if available); and
• If item was found, does the finder wish to have the item if it is not returned to the owner within 60 days.
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. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
United States International Trade Commission.
June 16, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On June 3, 2015, the Liquidating Trustee lodged a proposed “Stipulation By and Between the Liquidating Trustee and the United States Environmental Protection Agency” with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy entitled
The Settlement Agreement resolves the claims of the United States set forth in the Proof of Claim against Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc., for costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with the Buckingham County Landfill Site, located in Dillwyn, Buckingham County, Virginia (the “Site”), pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Liquidating Trustee agrees to an allowed and fixed general unsecured claim in the amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000) for costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency at the Site.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy
The ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials will hold a meeting on June 23-24, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is propriety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss the SHINE construction permit application for Mo99 medical radioisotopes production facility under 10 CFR part 50 and the staff's Safety Evaluation Report, Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 6a, 7, 8. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Maitri Banerjee (Telephone 301-415-6973 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting on June 25, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the NuScale Small Modular Reactor design. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the applicant (NuScale Power, LLC), NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Maitri Banerjee (Telephone 301-415-6973 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a director's decision with regard to petitions dated June 26 and July 3, 2011, filed by Mr. Thomas Saporito (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action with regard to Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), Unit 1 and Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), respectively. The petitioner's requests and the director's decision are included in the
June 10, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0014 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Fred Lyon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2296, email:
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML14128A141) on petitions filed by the petitioner on June 26 and July 3, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11182B029 and ML11192A285, respectively). The petitioner supplemented the petitions by teleconference on August 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11256A036).
The petitioner requested that the NRC issue a confirmatory order against Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), the licensee for FCS, prohibiting the licensee from restarting FCS, and issue a confirmatory order to Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), the licensee for CNS, requiring the licensee to bring CNS to a cold shutdown mode of operation, until: (1) The floodwaters subside to an appreciably lower level or to sea level, (2) the licensee upgrades its flood protection plan, (3) the licensee repairs and enhances its current flood protection berms, and (4) the licensee upgrades its station blackout procedures to meet a challenging extended loss of offsite power because of floodwaters and other natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
On August 29, 2011, the petitioner participated in a teleconference with the NRC's Petition Review Board. The meeting provided the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues cited in the petition. The transcript for that meeting is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML11256A036.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the petitioner, NPPD, and OPPD for comment on April 15, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15062A354, ML15062A362, and ML15062A366, respectively). The petitioner and the licensees were asked to provide comments within 14 days on any part of the proposed director's decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not addressed. The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that the requests, to prevent the restart of FCS or to bring CNS to cold shutdown, be denied. The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's decision DD-15-05 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by this regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a director's decision with regard to the petition dated June 21, 2012, filed by Mr. Wallace Taylor on behalf of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action with regard to Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), Unit 1. The petitioner's request and the director's decision are included in the
June 10, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0111 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Fred Lyon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2296, email:
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML15128A349) on the petition filed by the petitioner on June 21, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12180A124).
The petitioner requested that the NRC revoke the license of Omaha Public Power District (OPPD, the licensee) to operate FCS. As the basis of the request, the petitioner raised the following issues: (1) Licensee event report submitted September 10, 2012, showed a support beam was not within allowable limits for stress and loading (ADAMS Accession No. ML12255A038); (2) flood protection measures at FCS are inadequate and create an ongoing, high risk danger to public safety; (3) the flood risks of the six dams upstream of FCS are either unevaluated or unresolved, and (4) the 614 primary reactor containment electrical penetration seals containing Teflon identified at FCS, a material that could degrade during design-basis accident conditions.
On August 29, 2011, the petitioner participated in a teleconference with the NRC's Petition Review Board. The meeting provided the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues cited in the petition. The transcript for that meeting is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML11256A036. The petitioner provided supplemental material in support of the petition on August 22 and 27, November 19, and December 16, 17, and 20, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12240A099, ML12240A162, ML12250A714, ML12352A279, ML12352A221, and ML13109A240, respectively).
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and the licensee for comment on April 15, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15063A047 and ML15063A050, respectively). The petitioner and the licensee were asked to provide comments within 14 days on any part of the proposed director's decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not addressed. The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that the request, to revoke the operating license for FCS, be denied. The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's decision DD-15-04 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by this regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 24 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), and South Carolina Public Service Authority (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Denise McGovern, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0681; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in Title 10 of
(1) A means of connecting the structural wall modules to the base concrete through use of structural shapes, reinforcement bars, and shear studs extending horizontally from the structural module faceplates and embedded during concrete placement as an alternative to the use of embedment plates and vertically oriented reinforcement bars;
(2) a variance in structural module wall thicknesses from the thicknesses identified in the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 UFSAR Figure 3.8.3-8, “Structural Modules—Typical Design Details,” for some walls that separate equipment spaces from personnel access areas;
(3) the use of steel plates, structural shapes, reinforcement bars, or tie bars between the module faceplates, as needed to support localized loads and ensure compliance with applicable codes;
(4) revision to containment internal structure (CIS) evaluations, and
(5) clarification to the definition of in-containment “structural wall modules,” clarifying that the west wall of the In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) is not considered a “structural wall module,” that the CIS critical sections identified in VCSNS Units 2 and 3 UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3.5.8.1 present design summaries for areas of “large” demand in lieu of areas of “largest” demand, and revising the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 UFSAR in several places to provide consistency in terminology used to identify the structural wall modules
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15061A205.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15061A179 and ML15061A186, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15061A169 and ML15061A176, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated July 17, 2014 and supplemented by the letters dated September 25, 2014, and January 5, 2015, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (licensee) requested from the NRC an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 14-05, “Containment Internal Structural Wall Module Design Details.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found at (ADAMS Accession Number ML15061A205), the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption, and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 Tables: 3.3-1 and 3.3-7, as described in the licensee's request dated July 17, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated September 25, 2014, and January 5, 2015. This exemption is related to and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 24, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5 of the NRC staff Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession Number ML15061A205), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated July 17, 2014. The licensee supplemented this request by the letters dated September 25, 2014, and January 5, 2015. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as
The NRC staff has found that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on July 17, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated September 25, 2014, and January 5, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on March 12, 2015, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML15061A159).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates will hold a meeting on June 22, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed to protect information that is propriety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the Nine Mile Point Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis plus (MELLLA+) application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Weidong Wang (Telephone 301-415-8716 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order imposing trustworthiness and reliability requirements for unescorted access to certain radioactive material; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an order imposing trustworthiness and reliability requirements for unescorted access to certain radioactive material by request of a service provider licensee that is not a manufacturer or distributor. The order was issued on April 27, 2015, and became effective immediately.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0144 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michelle Smethers, Office of Nuclear
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Each licensee identified in Attachment 1
Subsequent to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the NRC issued immediately effective Security Orders to NRC and Agreement State licensees under the Commission's authority to protect the common defense and security of the nation. The Orders required certain manufacturing and distribution (M&D) licensees to implement Additional Security Measures (ASMs) for the radioactive materials listed in Attachment 2 to this Order (the radionuclides of concern), to supplement the existing regulatory requirements. The ASMs included requirements for determining the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals that require unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern. Section 652 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which became law on August 8, 2005, amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal history records check for “any individual who is permitted unescorted access to . . . radioactive materials or other property subject to regulation by the Commission that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks.” Section 149 of the AEA also requires that “all fingerprints obtained by an individual or entity . . . shall be submitted to the Attorney General of the United States through the Commission for identification and a criminal history records check.” Due to the 2005 revision of the AEA, the trustworthiness and reliability requirements of the ASMs were updated and the M&D licensees were issued additional Orders imposing the new fingerprinting requirements.
In late 2005, the NRC and the Agreement States began issuing Increased Controls (IC) Orders or other legally binding requirements to licensees who are authorized to possess the radionuclides of concern (the IC licensees). Paragraph IC 1.c, in Attachment B of the December 1, 2005, IC Order, “Increased Controls for Licensees That Possess Sources Containing Radioactive Material Quantities of Concern,” stated that “service providers shall be escorted unless determined to be trustworthy and reliable by an NRC-required background investigation as an employee of a manufacturing and distribution licensee” (70 FR 72130). Starting in December 2007, the NRC and the Agreement States began issuing additional Orders or other legally binding requirements to the IC licensees, imposing the new fingerprinting requirements. In the December 13, 2007, Fingerprinting Order, paragraph IC 1.c of the December 1, 2005, Order was superseded by the requirement that “Service provider licensee employees shall be escorted unless determined to be trustworthy and reliable by an NRC-required background investigation” (72 FR 70901). However, the NRC did not require background investigations for non-M&D service provider licensees. Consequently, only service representatives of certain M&D licensees may be granted unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern at the facility of an IC licensee (IC licensee facility), even though non-M&D service provider licensees provide similar services and have the same degree of knowledge of the devices they service as M&D licensees. To maintain appropriate access control to the radionuclides of concern, and to allow M&D licensees and non-M&D service provider licensees to have the same level of access at customers' facilities, the NRC is imposing trustworthiness and reliability requirements for unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern set forth in Table 1 of Attachment 2 of this Order. These requirements apply to non-M&D service provider licensees that request and have a need for unescorted access by their representatives to the radionuclides of concern at IC licensee facilities and facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 37. These trustworthiness and reliability requirements are equivalent to the requirements for M&D licensees who perform services requiring unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern.
In order to provide assurance that non-M&D service provider licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection for service providers requiring unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern at IC and part 37 licensee facilities, each licensee identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall implement the requirements of this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, because of potentially significant adverse impacts associated with a deliberate malevolent act by an individual with unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern, I find that the public health, safety, and interest require this Order to be effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 20, 30 and 33, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT EACH LICENSEE IDENTIFIED IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THIS ORDER COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER.
A.1. The licensee shall establish and maintain a fingerprinting program that meets the requirements of Attachment 3 to this Order for individuals that require unescorted access to the radionuclides
A.2. Within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order, the licensee shall designate a “Reviewing Official” for determining unescorted access to the radioactive materials as listed in Attachment 2 to this Order by other individuals. Before submittal of the individual's fingerprints to the NRC, the licensee must perform a trustworthiness and reliability review per the requirements in Attachment 3 of the Order. The licensee must verify the employment history, education, and personal references of the designated Reviewing Official for at least the past three (3) years. Additionally, the designated Reviewing Official must be authorized unescorted access to the radioactive materials listed in Attachment 2 to this Order as part of his or her job duties or have access to Safeguards Information. After this process, the licensee shall designate the Reviewing Official to the NRC by submitting the individual's fingerprints and processing fee.
A.3. Fingerprints for unescorted access need not be taken if a designated Reviewing Official is relieved from the fingerprinting requirement by 10 CFR 73.61, or has been favorably adjudicated by a U.S. Government program involving fingerprinting and a FBI identification and criminal history records check
A.4. The NRC will determine whether this individual (or any subsequent Reviewing Official) may have unescorted access to the radionuclides of concern and therefore be permitted to serve as the licensee's Reviewing Official. The NRC-approved Reviewing Official shall be the recipient of the results of the FBI identification and criminal history records check of the other licensee employees requiring unescorted access to the radioactive materials listed in Attachment 2 to this Order, and shall control such information as specified in the “Protection of Information” section of Attachment 3 to this Order.
A.5. A designated Reviewing Official may not review the results from the FBI identification and criminal history records checks or make unescorted access determinations until the NRC has approved the individual as the licensee's Reviewing Official.
A.6. The NRC-approved Reviewing Official shall determine whether an individual may have unescorted access to radioactive materials that equal or exceed the quantities in Attachment 2 to this Order, in accordance with the requirements described in Attachment 3 to this Order.
B. Prior to requesting fingerprints from a licensee employee, the licensee shall provide a copy of this Order to that person.
C.1. The licensee shall, in writing, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in this Order, including Attachment 3 to this Order, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission or Agreement State regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
C.2. The licensee shall complete implementation of the requirements of Attachment 3 to this Order within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of this Order.
C.3 The licensee shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 3 to this Order. The report shall be made within twenty-five (25) days after full compliance has been achieved.
C.4. If during the implementation period of this Order, the licensee is unable, due to circumstances beyond its control, to meet the requirements of this Order by October 24, 2015, the licensee shall request, in writing, that the Commission grant an extension of time to implement the requirements. The request shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking additional time to comply with the requirements of this Order.
C.5. Licensees shall notify the NRC's Headquarters Operations Office at (301) 816-5100 within 24 hours if the results from an FBI identification and criminal history records check indicate that an individual is identified on the FBI's Terrorist Screening Data Base.
Licensee responses to C.1, C.2., C.3., and C.4. above shall be submitted in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Licensee responses shall be marked as “Security-Related Information—Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390.”
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the licensee.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within twenty-five (25) days of the date of this Order. In addition, the licensee and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within twenty-five (25) days of the date of the Order. Where good cause
The answer may consent to this Order. If the answer includes a request for a hearing, it shall, under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d).
A request for a hearing must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which became effective on October 15, 2007. The E-Filing Final Rule was issued on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or, in some cases, to mail copies on electronic optical storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements associated with E-Filing, at least five (5) days prior to the filing deadline the requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Once a requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for a hearing through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
To be timely, electronic filings must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request is filed so that they may obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), file an exemption request with the initial paper filing showing good cause as to why the participant cannot file electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for providing the document to all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition to requesting a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty-five (25) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NRC supports the use of the International Atomic Energy Association's (IAEA) source categorization methodology as defined in IAEA Safety Standards Series No. RS-G-1.9, “Categorization of Radioactive Sources,” (2005) (see
Licensees who possess individual sources in total quantities that equal or exceed the Table 1 quantities are required to implement additional security measures. Where there are many small (less than the quantity of concern values) collocated sources whose total aggregate activity equals or exceeds the Table 1 values, licensees are to implement additional security measures.
Some source handling or storage activities may cover several buildings, or several locations within specific buildings. The question then becomes, “When are sources considered collocated for purposes of aggregation?” For purposes of the additional controls, sources are considered collocated if breaching a single barrier (
The following example illustrates the point: A lockable room has sources stored in it. Inside the lockable room, there are two shielded safes with additional sources in them. Inventories are as follows:
The room has the following sources outside the safes: Cf-252, 0.12 TBq (3.2 Ci); Co-60, 0.18 TBq (4.9 Ci), and Pu-238, 0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). Application of the unity rule yields: (0.12 ÷ 0.2) + (0.18 ÷ 0.3) + (0.3 ÷ 0.6) = 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.5 = 1.7. Therefore, the sources would require additional security measures.
Shielded safe #1 has a 1.9 TBq (51 Ci) Cs-137 source and a 0.8 TBq (22 Ci) Am-241 source. In this case, the sources would require additional security measures, regardless of location, because they each exceed the quantities in Table 1.
Shielded safe #2 has two Ir-192 sources, each having an activity of 0.3 TBq (8.1 Ci). In this case, the sources would not require additional security measures while locked in the safe. The combined activity does not exceed the threshold quantity 0.8 TBq (22 Ci). Because certain barriers may cease to exist during source handling operations (
Use the following method to determine which sources of radioactive material require implementation of the Additional Security Measures:
• Include any single source equal to or greater than the quantity of concern in Table 1.
• Include multiple collocated sources
• For combinations of radionuclides, include multiple collocated sources of
Licensees subject to the provisions of this Order shall comply with the requirements of this attachment. The term “certain radioactive material” means the radionuclides in quantities equal to or greater than the quantities listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
1. The Licensee shall provide the customer's facility written verification attesting to or certifying the trustworthiness and reliability of an individual as a service provider only for employees the Licensee has approved in writing (see requirement A.3 below).
2. The trustworthiness, reliability, and true identity of a service provider shall be determined based on a background investigation. The background investigation shall address at least the past three (3) years, and as a minimum, include fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records check as required in Section B, verification of employment history, education, and personal references. If a service provider's employment has been less than the required three (3) year period, educational references may be used in lieu of employment history.
3. The Licensee shall document the basis for concluding that there is reasonable assurance that a service provider requiring unescorted access to certain radioactive material at a customer facility is trustworthy and reliable, and does not constitute an unreasonable risk for unauthorized use of the radioactive material. The Licensee shall maintain a list of service providers approved for unescorted access to certain radioactive material.
4. The Licensee shall retain documentation regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of approved service providers for three years after the individual no longer requires unescorted access to certain radioactive material associated with the Licensee's activities.
5. Each time the Licensee revises the list of approved service providers (see requirement 3 above), the Licensee shall retain the previous list for three (3) years after the revision.
6. The Licensee shall provide to a customer written certification for each service provider for whom unescorted access to certain radioactive material at the customer's facility is required and requested. The written certification shall be dated and signed by the Reviewing Official. A new written certification is not required if an individual service provider returns to the customer facility within three years, provided the customer has retained the prior certification.
1. The Licensee shall fingerprint each service provider to be approved for unescorted access to certain radioactive materials following the procedures outlined in Enclosure 3 of the transmittal letter. The Licensee shall review and use the information received from the FBI identification and criminal history records check and ensure that the provisions contained in the subject Order and this attachment are satisfied.
2. The Licensee shall notify each affected individual that the fingerprints will be used to secure a review of his/her criminal history record and inform the individual of the procedures for revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as specified in the “Right to Correct and Complete Information” section of this attachment.
3. Fingerprints for unescorted access need not be taken if an employed individual (
4. All fingerprints obtained by the Licensee pursuant to this Order must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the FBI.
5. The Licensee shall review the information received from the FBI and consider it, in conjunction with the trustworthiness and reliability requirements of Section A of this attachment, in making a determination whether to approve and certify the individual for unescorted access to certain radioactive materials.
6. The Licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a criminal history records check solely for the purpose of determining an individual's suitability for unescorted access to certain radioactive materials.
7. The Licensee shall document the basis for its determination whether to approve the individual for unescorted access to certain radioactive materials.
A Licensee shall not base a final determination to not provide certification for unescorted access to certain radioactive material for an individual solely on the basis of information received from the FBI involving: an arrest more than one (1) year old for which there is no information of the disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal of the charge or an acquittal.
A Licensee shall not use information received from a criminal history check obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the Licensee use the information in any way which would discriminate among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, or age.
Prior to any final adverse determination, the Licensee shall make available to the individual the contents of any criminal records obtained from the FBI for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information. Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this notification must be maintained by the Licensee for a period of one (1) year from the date of the notification.
If, after reviewing the record, an individual believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in
1. Each Licensee who obtains a criminal history record on an individual pursuant to this Order shall establish and maintain a system of files and procedures for protecting the record and the personal information from unauthorized disclosure.
2. The Licensee may not disclose the record or personal information collected and maintained to persons other than the subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in the process of determining whether to verify the individual for unescorted access to certain radioactive material. No individual authorized to have access to the information may re-disseminate the information to any other individual who does not have a need-to-know.
3. The personal information obtained on an individual from a criminal history record check may be transferred to another Licensee if the Licensee holding the criminal history record check receives the individual's written request to re-disseminate the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining Licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable physical characteristics for identification purposes.
4. The Licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained under this section, available for examination by an authorized representative of the NRC to determine compliance with the regulations and laws.
5. The Licensee shall retain all fingerprints and criminal history records from the FBI, or a copy if the individual's file has been transferred:
a. For three (3) years after the individual no longer requires unescorted access, or
b. for three (3) years after unescorted access to certain radioactive material was denied.
After the required three (3) year period, these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent reconstruction of the information in whole or in part.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73, issued on November 5, 2009, and held by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company for the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS). The proposed action would revise the Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) to modify the boundary of the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, the proposed change would align the BVPS EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement protective actions around BVPS.
June 10, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0143 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Taylor Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7128, email:
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73, issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (BVPS) located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by section 51.21 of Title 10 of the
The proposed action would revise the Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) to modify the boundary of the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, the proposed change would align the BVPS EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement protective actions around BVPS.
The proposed action is requested by the licensee's application dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A512), as supplemented by letter dated December 1, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14336A520).
The proposed action would align the BVPS EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement protective actions around BVPS.
The proposed action is needed to address the dissimilarity between the BVPS EPZ and that of Columbiana County, Ohio; Hancock County, West Virginia; and Beaver County, Pennsylvania. After 2002, the emergency management agencies of the three counties modified their emergency plans to reflect the geopolitical boundaries for the 10-mile EPZ proposed for BVPS. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) provide that the exact configuration of the 10-mile EPZ is to be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. The proposed revised 10-mile EPZ boundary is used in an evacuation time estimate (ETE) that was developed for BVPS. The ETE, “Beaver Valley Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates,” December 2012, Final Report Revision 2, prepared by KLD Engineering, P.C. (ADAMS Accession No. ML130070160), was based on United States Census Bureau data for 2010. As a result of changes to the county emergency plans, BVPS proposed to make conforming changes to the BVPS 10-mile EPZ boundary in the EPP.
BVPS performed an analysis of the proposed change. The county emergency plans describe actions that would be applicable for events at BVPS that warrant a protective action of sheltering or evacuation. The BVPS analysis concluded that aligning the BVPS EPP 10-mile EPZ with the EPZ boundaries used by the offsite response organizations will ensure consistent communications are used when determining actions to protect the public health and safety.
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed amendment. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to align the BVPS EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties implementing protective actions around BVPS would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the updated Safety Analysis Report. There will be no change to radioactive effluents that effect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. No changes will be made to plant buildings or the site property. Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological impacts are expected as a result of the proposed amendment.
The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in NUREG-1437, Supplement 36, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 36; Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2,” dated May 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091260011).
On April 30, 2015, the staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Rich Janati, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official agreed with the conclusions in the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would revise the EPP to modify the boundary of the 10-mile EPZ. Specifically, the proposed change would align the BVPS EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement protective actions around BVPS.
The NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. The proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment because amending the licenses to revise the EPP to align the EPZ boundary with the boundary that is currently in use by the emergency management agencies of the three counties that implement protective actions around BVPS will not result in any significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts. Accordingly, on the basis of the environmental assessment in Section II above, which is incorporated by reference herein, the NRC has determined that a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.
The NRC's finding of no significant impact and incorporated environmental assessment are available for public inspection by publication in this notice and are available online in ADAMS at Accession No. ML15125A217. Environmental documents related to the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3. The proposed amendment would change a license condition pertaining to the PBAPS, Unit 3 replacement steam dryer (RSD). Currently, the license condition requires that a revised analysis for the RSD be submitted to the NRC, as a report, at least 90 days prior to the start of the Unit 3 extended power uprate (EPU) outage. The proposed amendment would reduce the period before the outage by which the analysis is to be submitted from 90 days to 30 days. The licensee indicated that the EPU outage is scheduled to start on September 14, 2015.
Submit comments by July 10, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by August 10, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Richard B. Ennis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1420, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0145 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0145 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of PBAPS, Unit 3, located in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendment would change license condition 2.C(15)(a)1 pertaining to the PBAPS, Unit 3 RSD. Currently, the license condition requires that revised stress analysis for the RSD be submitted to the NRC, as a report, at least 90 days prior to the start of the Unit 3 EPU outage. The proposed amendment would reduce the period before the outage by which the analysis is to be submitted from 90 days to 30 days. The EPU outage is scheduled to start on September 14, 2015. The revised analysis is based on results of recent testing and analysis for the PBAPS, Unit 2 RSD. Due to delays in the Unit 2 RSD testing and analysis, the licensee is unable to complete the Unit 3 RSD analysis and submit it to the NRC 90 days prior to the Unit 3 outage, as currently required by license condition 2.C(15)(a)1, while still maintaining the currently planned outage schedule. As such, the licensee requested a change to the licensee condition to reduce the
The licensee has requested that the amendment be processed under exigent circumstances, in accordance with the provisions in § 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed exigent license amendment reduces the length of time prior to the outage by which a predictive summary stress analysis of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3 replacement steam dryer (RSD), performed using an NRC-approved methodology benchmarked on the PBAPS, Unit 2 RSD, must be submitted to the NRC for information. There is no required review or approval of the revised analysis needed to satisfy the license condition. The proposed change is an administrative change to the period before the outage and does not impact any system, structure or component in such a way as to affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical or safety aspects.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed exigent license amendment reduces the length of time prior to the outage by which a revised stress analysis of the PBAPS, Unit 3 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical or safety aspects.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed exigent license amendment reduces the length of time prior to the outage by which a revised stress analysis of the PBAPS, Unit 3 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical or safety aspects.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Healthcare & Insurance/Federal Employee Insurance Operations (FEIO), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206-0160, Health Benefits Election Form. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 10, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Healthcare & Insurance/FEIO, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Room 3450-M, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Jay Fritz or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Room 3316-AC, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson or sent by email to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Health Benefits Election Form is used by Federal employees, annuitants other than those under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) including individuals receiving benefits from the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, former spouses eligible for benefits under the Spouse Equity Act of 1984, and separated employees and former dependents eligible to enroll under the Temporary Continuation of Coverage provisions of the FEHB law (5 U.S.C. 8905a). A different form (OPM 2809) is used by CSRS and FERS annuitants whose health benefit enrollments are administered by OPM's Retirement Operations.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a new information collection request (ICR) 3206-NEW, the Federal Annuitant Benefits Survey. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 10, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cristin Kane or sent by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cristin Kane or sent by email to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
June 22, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., and June 23, 2015, at 8:30 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Rule 13.8 to describe a communication and routing service known as BATS Connect. The proposed rule change is based on an identical service offered by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 13.8 to describe a communication and routing service known as BATS Connect. The Exchange proposes to offer BATS Connect on a voluntary basis in a capacity similar to a vendor. BATS Connect would operate in the same fashion as an identical service, also called BATS Connect, offered by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX.
Specifically, this service would allow Members to route orders to other exchanges and market centers that are connected to the Exchange's network. This communications or routing service would not effect trade executions and would not report trades to the relevant Securities Information Processor. An order sent via the service does not pass through the Exchange's matching engine before going to a market center outside of the Exchange (
The Exchange will charge a monthly connectivity fee to Members utilizing BATS Connect to route orders to other exchanges and broker-dealers that are connected to the Exchange's network. BATS Connect would also allow participants to receive market data feeds from the exchanges connected to the Exchange's network. The Exchange will file a separate proposed rule change with the Commission regarding the connectivity fees for order entry and market data to be charged for the BATS Connect service.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would permit the Exchange to provide Members with an alternative means to access other market centers, particularly in the event of a market disruption. In addition, the Exchange represents that BATS Connect does not provide any advantage to subscribers for connecting to the Exchange's affiliates as compared to other methods of connectivity available to subscribers.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 6.52 relating to the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (“SAM”). The text of the proposed rule change is provided below. (additions are
A Participant that represents agency orders may electronically execute orders it represents as agent (“Agency Order”) against solicited orders provided it submits the Agency Order for electronic execution into the solicitation auction mechanism (the “Auction”) pursuant to this Rule.
(a) Auction Eligibility Requirements. A Participant (the “Initiating Participant”) may initiate an Auction provided all of the following are met:
(1) The Agency Order is in a class designated as eligible for Auctions as determined by the Exchange and within the designated Auction order eligibility size parameters as such size parameters are determined by the Exchange (however, the eligible order size may not be less than 500 standard option contracts or 5,000 mini-option contracts);
(2) Each order entered into the Auction shall be designated as all-or-none
(3) The minimum price increment for an Initiating Participant's single price submission shall be determined by the Exchange on a series basis and may not be smaller than one cent.
(b) Auction Process. The Auction shall proceed as follows:
(1) Auction Period and Requests for Responses.
(A) To initiate the Auction, the Initiating Participant must mark the Agency Order for Auction processing, and specify a single price at which it seeks to cross the Agency Order with a solicited order
(B) When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency Order for Auction processing, a Request for Responses message indicating the price
(C)-(G) No change.
(2) Auction Conclusion and Order Allocation. The Auction shall conclude at the sooner of subparagraphs (b)(2)(A) through (E) of Rule 6.51. At the conclusion of the Auction, the Agency Order will be automatically executed in full or cancelled and allocated subject to the following:
(A) The Agency Order will be executed against the solicited order at the proposed execution price, provided that:
(i) The execution price must be equal to or better than the
(ii)-(iii) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.03 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to make changes to its existing SAM auction rules in Rule 6.52. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments would ensure greater consistency between the Exchange's SAM auction and order protection rules
Rule 6.52 permits Participants to electronically execute all-or-none (“AON”) orders for 500 or more standard options contracts or 5,000 or more mini-options contracts that they represent as agent (“Agency Order”) against solicited orders provided the Participant submits the Agency Order for electronic execution into SAM for auction (the “Auction”) pursuant to Rule 6.52.
Although Participants are subject to the Exchange's order protection rules and thus, prevented from trading through the displayed national best bid and offer (“NBBO”), including within the context of SAM auctions,
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.52(a)(2), 6.52(b)(1)(A), and 6.52(b)(2)(A)(i) to provide that Agency Orders submitted into SAM must be stopped with a solicited order priced at or within the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) as of the time of the initiation of the Auction (
The Exchange believes that requiring SAM orders to be stopped and executed at a price equal to, or better than, the NBBO as of the time of receipt of the Agency Order in the OHS is consistent with the Exchange's Intermarket Linkage Rule. As proposed, the range of permissible crossing prices and executions would be defined based on a snapshot of the market at the time when the Agency Order is received.
The following example demonstrates how the Exchange's proposal would provide order protection within the context of the SAM auction rules. Assume that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-$1.20 with quotes on both sides for 100 contracts each. The C2 BBO is $0.95-$1.25. The minimum increment in the class is $0.01. An Initiating Participant submits an Agency Order to buy 500 contracts against a solicited order to sell 500 contracts into SAM priced at $1.21. An RFR is transmitted to Participants that have elected to receive auction messages without any response. In this case, under current Rule 6.52(b)(2)(A), the Agency Order would be executable against the solicited order because the execution price of $1.21 improves the C2 best offer price of $1.25. Such execution, however, would be in violation of the Exchange's order protection rules because the Agency Order would have been executed outside of the NBBO of $1.00-$1.20. The Exchange proposes to remedy this inconsistency in the Rules by changing references to the BBO to NBBO and defining the term “initial auction NBBO” to mean priced at or within the NBBO as of the time of the initiation of the Auction (
The Exchange's proposal would not, however, change the priority of public customer orders resting in the book. Assume again that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-$1.20 with quotes on both sides for 100 contracts each. Assume this time, however, that there is also a public customer order to sell 50 contracts resting in the book at $1.20. The C2 BBO is $0.95-$1.20. An Initiating Participant submits an Agency Order to buy 500 contracts against a solicited order to sell 500 contracts into SAM priced at $1.20. An RFR is transmitted to Participants that have elected to receive auction messages with a single response to sell 150 contracts also at $1.20. In this case, under both current Rule 6.52(b)(2)(A) and the Exchange's proposed rule change, both the Agency Order and solicited order would be cancelled because there is a public customer order resting in the book on the opposite side of the Agency Order at the proposed price without sufficient size (considering all resting orders (
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rules 6.52(b)(1)(B) to further make clear that upon receiving a properly designated Agency Order for SAM Auction processing, the Exchange's RFR message would indicate the price, side, and size of the Agency Order that the Initiating Participant is seeking to cross. Rule 6.52(b)(1)(B) currently provides that the Exchange will send an RFR message to all Participants that have elected to receive such messages, indicating the price and size of the Agency Order that the Initiating Participant is seeking to cross, but does not currently specify that the RFR will also indicate the side (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would ensure further consistency within the Exchange's Rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule changes would further the objectives of the Act to protect investors by promoting the intermarket price protection goals of the Exchange's order protection rules and the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule would bolster intermarket competition by promoting fair competition among individual markets, while at the same time assuring that market participants receive the benefits of markets that are linked together, through facilities and rules, in a unified system, which promotes interaction among the orders of buyers and sellers. The Exchange believes its proposal would help ensure intermarket competition across all exchanges, aid in preventing intermarket trade-throughs, and facilitate compliance with best execution practices. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would help promote fair and orderly markets by helping to ensure compliance with the order protection rules. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 19, 2014, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission is extending the time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the comment letters and take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Rule 13.8 to describe a communication and routing service known as BATS Connect. The proposed rule change is based on an identical service offered by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 13.8 to describe a communication and routing service known as BATS Connect. The Exchange proposes to offer BATS Connect on a voluntary basis in a capacity similar to a vendor. BATS Connect would operate in the same fashion as an identical service, also called BATS Connect, offered by the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX.
Specifically, this service would allow Members to route orders to other exchanges and market centers that are connected to the Exchange's network. This communications or routing service would not effect trade executions and would not report trades to the relevant Securities Information Processor. An order sent via the service does not pass through the Exchange's matching engine before going to a market center outside of the Exchange (
The Exchange will charge a monthly connectivity fee to Members utilizing BATS Connect to route orders to other exchanges and broker-dealers that are connected to the Exchange's network. BATS Connect would also allow participants to receive market data feeds from the exchanges connected to the Exchange's network. The Exchange will file a separate proposed rule change with the Commission regarding the connectivity fees for order entry and market data to be charged for the BATS Connect service.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by the Exchange offering a service similar to those offered by the CHX and NYSE.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would permit the Exchange to provide Members with an alternative means to access other market centers, particularly in the event of a market disruption. In addition, the Exchange represents that BATS Connect does not provide any advantage to subscribers for connecting to the Exchange's affiliates as compared to other methods of connectivity available to subscribers.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14B regarding order routing to other exchanges to include certain references to provisions of Rule 15c3-5 under the Act
The Exchange may automatically route intermarket sweep orders to other exchanges under certain circumstances, including pursuant to Rule 6.14A
(a)-(g) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01 No change.
(a)-(e) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01 Only those Trading Permit Holders who have been approved to perform a floor function are authorized to enter into transactions on the floor. Such Trading Permit Holders include Floor Brokers who are registered pursuant to Rule 6.71[, Board Brokers who are registered pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.3] and Market-Makers registered pursuant to Rules 8.2 and 8.3. While on the floor such floor Trading Permit Holders shall at all times display a floor Trading Permit Holder's badge.
.02-.10 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Commission adopted Rule 15c3-5 (also referred to herein as the “Market Access Rule”) to require broker-dealers providing others with access to an exchange or alternative trading system to establish, document and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of providing such access.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14B to make explicit that broker-dealers routing Exchange orders to other markets must establish, document, and maintain a system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks of providing Trading Permit Holders and their customers access to other options exchanges and stock trading centers (as applicable), pursuant to Rule 15c3-5 under the Act. The proposed rule change would also state that pursuant to the policies and procedures developed by the routing broker to comply with Rule 15c3-5, if an order or series of orders are deemed by the routing broker to violate the applicable pre-trade requirements of Rule 15c3-5, the routing broker will reject the order(s) prior to routing and may seek to cancel any orders that have been routed. To the extent that any Exchange-affiliated routing broker determines, based on its procedures, that an order should be rejected, the routing broker may also seek to cancel orders that have already been routed away.
The Exchange is also proposing certain non-substantive amendments to Rule 6.20 pertaining to admissions to, and conduct on, the CBOE trading floor and Trading Permit Holder education. In particular, the Exchange is proposing in Rule 6.20.01 to eliminate reference to the term “Board Brokers” as these market participants no longer exist.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that, by including specific references to the existing requirements of Rule 15c3-5 under the Act within the Exchange Rules, the Exchange is reiterating a routing broker's obligation under Rule 15c3-5. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will benefit Trading Permit Holders because it provides clarity on the process
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change is technical in nature in that is designed to reiterate existing requirements under the Market Access Rule, which will provide clarity on the process employed for away market routing and make the Market Access Rule easier to administer consistently across markets. The Exchange's other proposal to make other miscellaneous, non-substantive changes to Rule 6.20 will simplify and update the Rules, and make them easier to read. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange also notes that another exchange, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), has substantially similar provisions in its rules.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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 6, 2015, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
NYSE proposed to amend the Exchange's Operating Agreement to remove the requirement that the independent directors that make up the majority of the board of directors of the Exchange (“Board”) also be directors of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”), the Exchange's parent company. Currently, section 2.03(a)(i) of the Operating Agreement, which governs the Board's composition, provides that a majority of the Exchange's directors shall be U.S. persons who are members of the board of directors of ICE and who satisfy the Exchange's Company Director Independence Policy. Each such director is defined as an “ICE Independent Director” in section 2.03(a)(i)(1) of the Operating Agreement. The Exchange proposed to amend section 2.03(a)(i) to remove the requirement that the independent directors, making up the majority of the Board, also be directors of ICE, by amending the definition of “ICE Independent Director” to remove the reference to ICE, and to make conforming changes in both subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of section 2.03(a).
The Exchange represented that, even upon approval of this modification to its Operating Agreement, a majority of the directors of the Board would continue to satisfy the Company Director Independence Policy.
After review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that, while the proposal removes the requirement that the independent directors who make up the majority of the Board also be ICE directors, it does not alter the requirement under the Operating Agreement that a majority of the Board must satisfy the Exchange's Company Director Independence Policy.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
This notice is to inform the public that the Secretary of State determined on May 20, 2015, pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (Pub. L. 112-81), as amended, that as of May 20, 2015, the following countries, Malaysia and Singapore, have maintained their crude oil purchases from Iran at zero over the preceding 180-day period.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will hold a conference call on Wednesday, July 1, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The teleconference meeting will be closed to the public to allow the Commission to discuss applications for the UNESCO Young Professionals Program. This call will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) because it will involve discussions of information of a personal and financial nature regarding the relative merits of individual applicants where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. For more information contact Allison Wright, Executive Director of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 663-0026; Fax: (202) 663-0035; Email:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 14 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective July 9, 2015. Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2013-0028], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 14 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 14 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 14 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 25766; 76 FR 37885; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188). Each of these 14 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending theexemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2013-0028), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, got to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 60 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 60 individual exemption requests on their merit and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following nine applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
The following nine applicants did not have three years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following four applicants did not have three years of recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following two applicants did not have sufficient driving experience during the past three years under normal highway operating conditions:
The following applicant, Richard Anthony, had his CDL suspended in relation to a moving violation during the three-year period. Applicants do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension during the three-year period.
The following five applicants were unable to obtain a statement from an optometrist or ophthalmologist stating that he was able to operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint:
The following applicant, Larry Defrain, did not have stable vision for the entire three-year period.
The following two applicants did not meet the vision standard in their better eye:
The following nine applicants met the current federal vision standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the current regulations for vision:
The following 15 applicants were denied because they will not be driving interstate, interstate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
Finally, the following three applicants perform transportation for the federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 20 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective June 26, 2015. Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-27333], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 20 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 20 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 20 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 17994; 66 FR 33990; 67 FR 57266; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 28093; 72 FR 32705; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 26464; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 34135; 78 FR 34140). Each of these 20 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-25246; FMCSA-2007-27333), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, got to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted April 18, 2015. The exemptions expire on April 18, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On March 18, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 14223). That notice listed 28 applicants' case histories. The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 28 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 28 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including retinal scar, complete loss of vision, branch retinal vein occlusion, amblyopia, corneal scar, refractive amblyopia, prosthetic eye, branch vein occlusion, exotropia, glaucoma, histoplasmosis, retinal detachment, anisometropia, and damaged cornea and retina. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Fifteen of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The thirteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of three to 43 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 28 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from three to 34 years. In the past three years, two drivers were involved in crashes, and three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 18, 2015 notice (80 FR 14223).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 28 applicants, two drivers were involved in crashes, and three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 28 applicants listed in the notice of March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14223).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 28 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and Request for Comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the renewal Information Collection Requests (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2015.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On March 30, 2015, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the information collection request (ICR) and the expected burden. The revised request is being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2015.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
Daeleen Chesley, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, at 202 366-9342 (voice) or
Among other things, the office is responsible for receiving and investigating service-related consumer complaints filed against airlines and other travel-related companies. Once received, the complaints are reviewed by the office to determine the extent to which carriers are in compliance with federal aviation consumer protection and civil rights laws and what, if any, action should be taken.
The key reason for this request is to enable consumers to continue to file their complaints (or comments) to the Department using an on-line form, whether using their personal computer or their mobile device. If the information collection form is not available, the Department may receive fewer complaints from consumers. The lack of information could inhibit the Departments' ability to improve airline consumer satisfaction, effectively investigate individual complaints against an airline or other travel-related companies that have an air travel component, and/or determine patterns and practices that may develop in violation of our rules. The information collection also furthers the objectives of 49 U.S.C. 41712, 40101, 40127, 41702, and 41705 to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices, to protect the civil rights of air travelers, and to ensure safe and adequate service in air transportation.
Filing a complaint using a web-based form is voluntary and minimizes the burden on the public. Consumers can also choose to file a complaint with the Department by sending a letter using regular mail or by phone message. The type of information requested on the on-line form includes complainant's name, address, home and/or daytime phone number (including area code) and email address, name of the airline or company about which she/he is complaining, flight date, flight number, and origin and destination cities of complainant's trip. A consumer may also use the form to give a description of a specific problem or to ask for air-travel related information from the ACPD. The Department has limited its informational request to only that information necessary to meet its program and administrative monitoring and enforcement requirements.
On February 6, 2015, the Department published a 60-day notice in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Response to Public Comments.
Pursuant to the Department's regulations, certain air carriers are required to file BTS Schedule B-7 (Airframe and Aircraft Engine Acquisitions and Retirements) and Schedule B-43 (Inventory of Airframes and Aircraft Engines). Under the Department's regulations, the Department can withhold confidential business information if release of the confidential information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the entity that submitted the information to the Department. The BTS routinely grants, based on the sensitive nature of this cost data, a ten-year confidentiality period. After receiving notification that, upon the expiration of the ten-year confidentiality period, the BTS intended to release the cost data, Airlines for America (A4A), an industry association representing several air carriers, filed an objection to the pending release. A4A claimed that the cost data, although twenty years old, remained sensitive and its release would result in competitive harm. Bloomberg News requested that the Department release the cost data.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
Pursuant to 14 CFR part 241, certain air carriers are required to file BTS Schedule B-7 (Airframe and Aircraft Engine Acquisitions and Retirements) and Schedule B-43 (Inventory of Airframes and Aircraft Engines). These schedules contain cost data concerning airframes and aircraft engines. In previous confidentiality requests, UPS and United requested and the Department granted a ten-year period of confidentiality for the cost data reported on the Form 41, Schedules B-7 and B-43.
Prior to the expiration of the twenty-year period, BTS informed twelve air carriers that, at the close of the twenty-year period (October 1, 2014), the agency intended to release the information. Airline for America (A4A) on behalf of its members, filed objections to the release (see OST Docket No. 2014-0031). A4A claims that the information, although twenty years old, is so sensitive that each company would suffer “competitive harm” if the BTS releases the information.
In its objection, A4A maintains that the information is still “commercially sensitive” based on three main points: (1) Disclosure of the data diminishes competition among the major aircraft manufacturers; engine manufacturers, and new and used aircraft owners and lessors who can use the commercially sensitive data to closely track each other's acquisition and retirement costs; (2) disclosure of the data impairs competition among competing domestic and foreign airlines in the international arena, because United States airlines are required to reveal major elements of their cost structures when their foreign competitors are not; and (3) the Department does not use this data to support any policy initiatives.
In addition, the Department determined that withholding the information under Exemptions 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) and 4)). Exemption 3 allows the withholding of information if the disclosure is prohibited by another statute and the statute either: “(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;” (see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)). The Department determined that a provision in the United States Code (see 49 U.S.C. 40115) qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute in that the statute allows the Department to order certain information withheld from public disclosure if the disclosure would “have an adverse effect on the competitive position of an air carrier in foreign air transportation.” (See 49 U.S.C. 40115(a)(2)(B)).
In light of its objections, A4A requested that “the Department cease collecting the information because it serves no useful purpose, is burdensome to report and competitively sensitive or at the very least continue to afford confidential treatment to Form 41, Schedules B-7 and B-43 and that such confidential treatment be continued indefinitely or, at a minimum, for an additional ten year period.
Bloomberg News, in a letter dated April 13, 2015 stated the information at issue is now 20 years old. Given the passage of time, any interest in keeping the data confidential has presumably lessened. Disclosure of cost data after 20 years would seem to achieve a reasonable balance between transparency and maintaining the confidentiality of potentially sensitive commercial information.
Based on the comments received, the BTS will grant an additional 10 year confidentiality period while seeking regulatory language to delete the requirement for collecting airframe and engine cost data.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB); and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Notice of final interagency policy statement; request for comments on proposed collection of information.
The OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC are issuing a final interagency policy statement establishing joint standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the entities they regulate, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
The final interagency policy statement is effective on June 10, 2015. The agencies are soliciting comments only on the collection of information. Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015. The effective date of the collection of information will be announced in the
Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) required the OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC (each, an Agency and collectively, the Agencies) to each establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to be responsible for all matters of the Agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.
Prior to drafting these standards, the OMWI Directors held a series of roundtable discussions and teleconferences with representatives of a variety of regulated entities, including depository institutions, holding companies, and industry trade groups, to solicit their views on appropriate standards and to learn about the successes and challenges of existing diversity policies and programs. In addition, the OMWI Directors met with financial professionals, consumer advocates, and community representatives to gain a greater understanding of the issues confronting minorities and women in obtaining employment and business opportunities within the financial services industry. The information and feedback provided during these outreach sessions guided the development of these standards.
On October 25, 2013, the Agencies published a Notice in the
The Proposal set out standards for assessing an entity's diversity policies and practices in the following areas: Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion; Workforce Profile and Employment Practices; Procurement and Business Practices—Supplier Diversity; and Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and Inclusion. These proposed standards reflected the leading policies and practices for advancing workforce and supplier diversity.
The Proposal also explained the Agencies' approach to assessments,
In drafting the proposed standards, the Agencies recognized that each entity has unique characteristics, such as its governance structure, workforce size, total assets, contract volume, geographic location, and community characteristics. To reflect this, throughout the Proposal, the Agencies stated that the standards may be tailored and used in a manner reflective of an individual entity's size and other characteristics. In developing the Proposal, the Agencies were also mindful of section 342(b)(4) of the Act, which states that the directive to develop standards may not be construed to mandate any requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the findings of the assessment.
The Agencies collectively received more than 200 comments on the Proposal, although some commenters submitted either multiple comments or identical or substantially similar comments to multiple Agencies. The comments reflected the views of interested parties, including financial institutions, public interest organizations, trade associations and organizations, government officials, and other members of the public. In general, the commenters supported the concept of diversity and inclusion, particularly in the workforce. A number of commenters applauded the Agencies for jointly developing standards, while others commended the Proposal's flexible approach. Other commenters, however, expressed concern about the Proposal. Some urged the Agencies to withdraw the proposed standards, while others suggested specific changes to address certain issues.
The Agencies carefully considered all of these comments in formulating the final Policy Statement. The discussion below addresses significant issues that commenters raised and explains the changes to the Policy Statement.
The Agencies received several comments that interpreted the Proposal to impose new legal requirements on regulated entities or to mandate specific actions. Some commenters argued that these requirements and mandates exceeded the Agencies' statutory authority and were unlawful. For example, several commenters interpreted references to “metrics” in the Proposal to require or strongly encourage quotas in hiring and contracting. Others expressed concern that the new requirements would impose a significant compliance burden, particularly on small entities. For example, some commenters interpreted the standards to require entities to develop methods for assessing supplier diversity, and they argued that this was unduly burdensome for small entities.
Other commenters stated that the Proposal used “prescriptive” language, from which they inferred that some level of compliance with the standards would be expected from regulated entities. These commenters urged the Agencies to draft the final standards as “recommendations” and clarify that the final Policy Statement is a guidance document. Another commenter requested that the Agencies frame the final Policy Statement as a “best practices” guide with which regulated entities were not required to comply.
In contrast, some commenters stated that the inclusion of new requirements or mandates in the standards was consistent with the plain language of section 342(b)(2)(C). For example, some commenters argued that the Agencies should require the regulated entities to provide them with information about their diversity policies and practices, including assessment information. Others stated that the congressional intent of section 342 was to promote diversity and inclusion to the maximum extent possible and noted that the Proposal sets only minimum standards.
In light of these comments, it is clear that Agencies need to provide additional guidance about the intended legal effect of the final Policy Statement. To this end, the Agencies have added the following language: “This document is a general statement of policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not create new legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated entity is voluntary.” The Agencies believe that this will clarify the confusion noted above.
Several commenters raised questions about the meaning of “diversity,” which the Proposal did not define. A few commenters requested the Agencies define the term to avoid differing interpretations, with one commenter stating that the standards would not be useful in the absence of a definition. Several commenters suggested definitions, ranging from a definition limited to minorities and women to an expanded definition that would include individuals with disabilities, veterans, and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) individuals. Another commenter recommended also defining “inclusion,” to make clear that the goal of diversity is not met by simply hiring a diverse group.
The Agencies agree that the term “diversity” should be defined. They also believe it should both reflect the general focus in section 342 on minorities and women and provide flexibility to regulated entities that define the term more broadly. Accordingly, the final Policy Statement provides that “diversity” refers to “minorities . . . and women.” For purposes of this definition, “minority” is defined as Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans, which is consistent with the definition of “minority” in section 342(g)(3) of the Act.
The final Policy Statement also states that this definition of diversity “does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition with regard to these standards.” This language is intended to be sufficiently flexible to encompass other groups if an entity wants to define the term more broadly. For example, a broader definition may include the categories referenced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1 Report),
The EEO-1 Report defines race and ethnicity categories as Hispanic or Latino; White (Not Hispanic or Latino); Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino); American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino); and Two or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino).
The Agencies also agree that the concept of inclusion is important to include in these standards because current leading practices advocate an inclusive culture as essential in the support of diversity and inclusion programs. Therefore, the final Policy Statement defines “inclusion” to mean a process to create and maintain a positive work environment that values individual similarities and differences, so that all can reach their potential and maximize their contributions to an organization.”
Although the Proposal encouraged the use of the standards “in a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,” the Agencies received questions and comments about how the standards apply or are relevant to small entities. Some commenters stated that the Proposal offered a “one-size fits all approach” and should be replaced with standards that reflect the unique structure of small entities. Another commenter noted that many small regulated entities do not have boards of directors, Web sites, or other attributes referenced in the Proposal. According to this commenter, even with the Proposal's caveat that the standards may be tailored for small entities, these organizations would be at a disadvantage when measuring their policies and practices in light of the proposed standards. Others suggested that the Policy Statement expressly carve out entities below a certain size, such as those with fewer than 100 employees or those that do not file EEO-1 Reports.
These comments demonstrate that the Agencies need to clarify how the standards are relevant to and may be used by small entities. Therefore, the final Policy Statement states, “The Agencies recognize that each entity is unique with respect to characteristics such as its size, location, and structure. When drafting these standards, the Agencies focused primarily on institutions with more than 100 employees. The Agencies know that institutions that are small or located in remote areas face different challenges and have different options available to them compared to entities that are larger or located in more urban areas. The Agencies encourage each entity to use these standards in a manner appropriate to its unique characteristics.”
A few commenters requested that the Agencies clarify whether the standards apply to a regulated entity's foreign operations. These commenters observed that many regulated entities operate internationally and that the concept of diversity varies from country to country. They advocated that regulated entities be allowed the flexibility to include or exclude foreign operations when conducting an assessment. In response, the final Policy Statement clarifies that the final standards address an entity's U.S. operations. This does not, however, preclude a multinational entity from also using these standards to undertake a broader assessment of its organization.
The first set of standards in the Proposal addressed the role and importance of an entity's senior leadership in promoting diversity and inclusion across an organization. These standards described the policies and practices that demonstrate the commitment of an entity's senior leadership to diversity and inclusion in both employment and contracting, as well as to fostering a corporate culture that embraces diversity and inclusion.
Commenters were generally supportive of including standards to assess an organization's commitment, with several referencing the importance of diversity and inclusion in their own organizations. Some commenters noted that an organization's commitment to diversity and inclusion can provide a competitive advantage. Another stated that, while an institution's commitment to diversity is important, each regulated entity should be allowed to demonstrate this commitment in its own way and cautioned against assuming that extensive and formalized policies demonstrate an organization's commitment to diversity. This commenter noted, as an example, that it would be more appropriate for community banks to apply their efforts to community outreach rather than to creating documentation to show compliance.
Several commenters recommended changes to these standards. One commenter suggested adding language stating that diversity and inclusion are best served when an entity assigns senior leadership to these initiatives and provides this leadership with the appropriate resources. Another commenter suggested that the standards specify the appropriate credentials for the personnel responsible for an entity's diversity efforts, such as experience, a proven track record, and the ability to help others understand and embrace diversity efforts.
The Agencies are encouraged that the commenters generally acknowledge how essential organizational commitment is to advancing diversity and inclusion. The Agencies also agree that the senior official responsible for an entity's diversity and inclusion efforts preferably should have relevant knowledge and experience, and they have revised this standard to reflect this change. Otherwise, the final standards on Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion are consistent with the Proposal.
The Proposal provided examples of how an entity could promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and noted that many entities evaluate their business objectives using analytical tools to track and measure workforce inclusiveness. It set out standards to assess an entity's workforce profile and employment practices, which included using the data prepared in connection with EEO-1 Reports and Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs),
Several commenters expressed concern about using the EEO-1 Report data for this purpose, pointing out that it provides a purely numerical view of workforce diversity and gives little insight into the impact of diversity efforts. One commenter suggested that EEO-1 Report data should constitute, at most, a small element of a more holistic view of an entity's diversity practices. This commenter recommended that the Agencies revise the standards to focus on an entity's diversity efforts and to take into account: industry-specific considerations; the relevant labor market; and ongoing efforts to facilitate, promote and increase diversity. Other commenters observed that EEO-1 Report data does not address concepts of diversity that are broader than gender, race, and ethnicity or the extent of diversity within an entity's management and senior management ranks.
Still other commenters were concerned that references in the Proposal to “metrics,” as a tool for
Commenters also addressed the specific standard that would hold an entity's management accountable for diversity and inclusion efforts. One commenter stated that it is not clear who this standard is intended to cover and what constitutes accountability. Another commenter argued that this standard is overbroad and implies that regulated entities are required to include diversity and inclusion measurements in the performance evaluations of all management personnel. This commenter also expressed concern that this requirement could lead to unlawful employment decisions focused on achieving quotas and suggested that only the senior-level official(s) responsible for overseeing and directing diversity efforts, not all management personnel, should be held accountable. Another group of commenters observed, however, that accountability may be achieved most effectively by linking an entity's diversity and inclusion efforts to its leaders' performance assessments and compensation.
In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the reference to EEO-1 Report and AAP data. The Agencies recognize that the information generated from these sources is limited, particularly for entities with large workforces and those that broadly define diversity. However, this information may provide a baseline that a company may find useful. To address commenters who expressed concern that the data coming from these particular sources is limited or narrow, the Agencies have added a statement to encourage entities to use other analytical tools that they may find helpful. Finally, due to a change in how the Agencies organized the final standards, the discussion about EEO-1 data, AAP data, and other analytical tools is located in the introduction to this set of standards and not in the standards themselves.
With respect to references to “metrics,” the Agencies continue to believe that quantitative data is valuable for evaluating diversity and inclusion but know that qualitative data and information also can provide useful material for this purpose. In order to clarify that both types of resources are important, the Agencies have revised the final standards to reflect the importance of both quantitative and qualitative measurements.
With respect to the concern expressed by some commenters that the proposed standards could be interpreted to encourage or require the unlawful use of quotas, classifications, or preferences for personnel actions, the Agencies note that they did not intend to require or encourage unlawful usage. That said, the collection and use of data on race, gender, and ethnicity for self-evaluation is not unlawful. To address this confusion, however, the Agencies added to the Policy Statement a new standard providing that the “entity implements policies and practices related to workforce diversity and inclusion in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.” The final Policy Statement also includes another new standard, which provides that the “entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful employment discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.” The Agencies believe that together, these new standards will address confusion about whether the standards encourage or require the unlawful use of quotas, classifications, or preferences.
Finally, the Agencies retained the proposed standard that referenced management accountability but have clarified that this standard applies to all levels of management. The Agencies believe that management accountability at all levels is an important factor to consider when evaluating workforce diversity and employment practices. In addition, the final standards provide an example of one manner of addressing management accountability for diversity and inclusion efforts.
The third set of standards included in the Proposal addressed the leading practices related to supplier diversity. These included a supplier diversity policy that provides a fair opportunity for minority-owned and women-owned businesses to compete for procurement of business goods and services; methods to evaluate and assess supplier diversity (which may include metrics and analytics); and practices that promote a diverse supplier pool.
The Agencies received many comments on this set of standards. Several commenters argued that the scope of 342(b)(2)(C) is limited to diversity in employment practices and, therefore, the Agencies exceeded their statutory authority by proposing supplier diversity standards. Others argued that these standards would unlawfully compel the use of private funds to promote diversity. Another group of commenters supported these standards and noted that entities with a commitment to diversity and inclusion often have supplier diversity programs. These commenters stated that supplier diversity can contribute to an entity's efficiency and innovation, reflect its customer base, promote growth and development, and support job creation and economic development. Additional commenters urged the Agencies to include stronger or additional standards on this topic. For example, some encouraged the Agencies to set targets for the percentage of an entity's procurement dollars that should be spent with diverse vendors and to establish other quantifiable measures to ensure the full and fair inclusion of diverse suppliers.
After careful consideration of these comments, the Agencies have elected not to make any substantive changes to the standards for policies and practices related to supplier diversity. The Agencies believe that consideration of an entity's supplier diversity policies and practices is within the scope of section 342(b)(2)(C) and is appropriate for a comprehensive self-assessment. The Agencies do not believe, however, that it is appropriate for them to dictate quantifiable targets for supplier diversity and have not included targets in the final Policy Statement.
As explained in the Proposal, transparency of an entity's diversity and inclusion program promotes the objectives of section 342. Transparency and publicity are important because they give members of the public information to assess an entity's diversity policies and practices. Accordingly, the Proposal included standards setting out the leading practices in this area, which include the entity making information about its diversity and inclusion strategic plans, commitment, and progress available to the public.
Several commenters supported the goal of transparency, arguing that it is critical to the fair and efficient manner in which our financial markets operate. They also believe that transparency provides valuable information to an entity's management, employees, prospective employees, customers, and investors, as well as to the general
The Agencies believe that the goals of section 342 can be best achieved when an entity is transparent with respect to its diversity and inclusion efforts and progress. They believe that the proposed standards accomplished this goal in the appropriate manner and have included them in the final Policy Statement with no material changes.
The Proposal included a section entitled “Proposed Approach to Assessment,” in which the Agencies explained that in a “model assessment,” a regulated entity would use the standards to undertake a self-assessment, disclose the self-assessment and other relevant information to the appropriate Agency, and share with the public its efforts to comply with the standards. The Agencies received many comments on this section.
A number of commenters requested more information on the frequency of self-assessments. To address this, the final Policy Statement provides that an entity with successful diversity policies and practices conducts a self-assessment annually and monitors and evaluates its performance under its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis. An annual review and ongoing monitoring are consistent with both leading practices and other types of business assessments.
Other commenters asked for clarification on where a regulated entity should submit its assessment data and recommended that the Agencies designate a “lead” agency for this purpose. In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies clarify that entities that choose to share their self-assessment information with their regulator may provide it to the OMWI Director of the entity's primary federal financial regulator.
Finally, to assist entities in viewing the final Policy Statement as an integrated whole, the model assessment concepts introduced in this section of the Proposal are now a fifth set of standards entitled “Entities' Self-Assessment.”
The Agencies received many comments on the Proposal's description of a model assessment as a “self-assessment.” Some commenters viewed a self-assessment as a reasonable interpretation of statutory intent, while others asserted that it was the only permissible interpretation. Others expressed concern with the concept of an entity conducting its own assessment and questioned whether this approach either would undermine regulatory oversight or was inconsistent with the statute. Some commenters suggested that the Agencies were required by statute to conduct the assessments.
In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the self-assessment approach to assessments. While it is clear to the Agencies that the statute contemplates that assessments will take place, they interpret the statutory language as ambiguous with respect to who should conduct the assessments or the form that assessments should take. The Agencies also believe that the entities are in the best position to assess their own diversity policies and practices and that these self-assessments can provide entities with an opportunity to focus on areas of strength and weakness in their own policies and programs.
The Agencies received many comments about the Proposal's “disclosure” component of a model assessment. Some commenters argued that by encouraging disclosure, the Agencies would discourage candid self-assessments. Another group of commenters was concerned about protecting the confidentiality of disclosed information and recommended including a safe harbor in the final standards to protect the disclosed information from release.
Other commenters interpreted the statute to mandate disclosure and rejected the idea of a voluntary disclosure. One of these commenters argued that “voluntary disclosure” conflicted with congressional intent, as evidenced by the section 342(b)(4) statement that nothing in the directive to develop standards may be construed to require any specific action based on the findings of the assessment. This commenter argued that the phrase “findings of the assessment” in the statutory language indicates that the Agencies will obtain assessment information from the regulated entities and, therefore, the disclosure cannot be voluntary.
One commenter expressed concern that the permissiveness of voluntary disclosures would invite the regulated entities to disregard the Agencies and treat their oversight as optional and irrelevant. This commenter expressed concern that very few regulated entities would share their assessment information with the Agencies unless they were required to do so. Another commenter noted that financial institutions have been required to disclose information on lending practices, including lending by ethnic group, since 1975 pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and that this requirement has provided transparency without endangering the institutions.
With respect to the final Policy Statement, the Agencies view a voluntary scheme as more consistent with the framework set out by the statute, and therefore, the final Policy Statement provides for voluntary disclosure. Nevertheless, the final Policy Statement reflects leading practices with respect to transparency by encouraging the entities to disclose assessment information to the Agencies. Entities submitting information may designate such information as confidential commercial information as appropriate, and the Agencies will follow the Freedom of Information Act in the event of requests for particular submissions.
Finally, the Agencies received comments about the Proposal's provision encouraging entities to disclose to the public information about their efforts to comply with the standards. Some commenters supported
In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the concept of an entity publicly displaying information regarding its efforts with respect to the standards. As noted above, disclosure reflects leading practices with respect to transparency. In addition, the final Policy Statement, consistent with the Proposal, also does not specify the types of information that regulated entities might consider making publicly available. The Agencies believe the regulated entities should have discretion to decide the type of information and the level of detail to share publicly.
In describing the model assessment, the Proposal stated that the Agencies would monitor the information submitted to them as a resource in carrying out their diversity and inclusion responsibilities. It also stated that the Agencies may periodically review entities' public information to monitor diversity and inclusion practices. The Agencies may contact entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and methods of assessment. The Agencies did not receive any specific or material comments on these statements.
In the final Policy Statement, these concepts are retained. The final Policy Statement states that the Agencies may publish information disclosed to them provided they do not identify a particular entity or individual or disclose confidential business information in an effort to balance concerns about confidentiality of information with the importance of sharing information.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
PRA requires an agency to provide the public and other agencies with an opportunity to comment on any proposed information collection. This helps to ensure that: the public understands the agency's collection and instructions; respondents provide the requested data in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; interested parties understand the collection instruments; and the agency can properly assess the impact of its information collection on respondents.
This Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies contains a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. The Agencies intend to submit this new collection of information to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations. For collections of information not contained in a proposed rule, the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
The title for the proposed collection of information is:
• Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and Practices
The Joint Standards entitled “Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and Inclusion” contemplate that the regulated entity is transparent about its diversity and inclusion activities by making certain information available to the public annually on its Web site or in other appropriate communications, in a manner reflective of the entity's size and other characteristics. The information noted in this standard is: The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan; its policy on its commitment to diversity and inclusion; progress toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and procurement activities (which may include the entity's current workforce and supplier demographic profiles); and employment and procurement opportunities available at the entity that promote diversity.
In addition, the Joint Standards entitled “Self-Assessment” envision that the regulated entity uses the Joint Standards to conduct a voluntary self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices at least annually, provides to its primary federal financial regulator information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of diversity policies and practices, and publishes information pertaining to its efforts with respect to the standards. The information provided to the Agencies would be used to monitor progress and trends among regulated entities with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities, and to identify and publicize promising diversity policies and practices.
The collections of information contemplated by the Joint Standards would impose no new recordkeeping burdens as regulated entities would only publish or provide information pertaining to diversity policies and practices that they maintain during the normal course of business. The Agencies estimate that it would take a regulated entity approximately 12 burden hours on average to annually publish information pertaining to diversity policies and practices on the entity's Web site or in other appropriate communications, and retrieve and submit information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices to the primary federal financial regulator. The Agencies estimate the total burden for all regulated entities as follows:
The Agencies specifically invite comment on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Agencies' estimate of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be collected; (d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden 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.
The Agencies will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and/or include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Commenters may submit their comments to the Agencies at:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Agency Web site:
Email:
Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, MB-3074, or John Popeo, Counsel, MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
•
•
•
Section 342(b)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the Directors of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to develop standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the entities regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and Securities and Exchange Commission (Agencies). To promote consistency, the Agencies worked together to develop joint standards (Standards) for assessing diversity policies and practices. This Interagency Policy Statement (Policy Statement) announces those Standards.
This document is a general statement of policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not create new legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated entity is voluntary. The Agencies will not use their examination or supervisory processes in connection with these Standards.
For purposes of this Policy Statement, the Agencies define “diversity” to refer to minorities, as defined in section 342(g)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act (that is, Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans), and women. This definition of diversity does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition with regard to these standards. In addition, as used in this Policy Statement, the Agencies define “inclusion” to mean a process to create and maintain a positive work environment that values individual similarities and differences, so that all can reach their potential and maximize their contributions to an organization. The Standards set forth below may be used to assess policies and practices that impact the inclusion
The Agencies designed these Standards to provide a framework for an entity to create and strengthen its diversity policies and practices, including its organizational commitment to diversity, workforce and employment practices, procurement and business practices, and practices to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion. The Agencies recognize that each entity is unique with respect to characteristics such as its size, location, and structure. When drafting these standards, the Agencies focused primarily on institutions with more than 100 employees. The Agencies know that institutions that are small or located in remote areas face different challenges and have different options available to them compared to entities that are larger or located in more urban areas. The Agencies encourage each entity to use these Standards in a manner appropriate to its unique characteristics. Finally, the Agencies intend that the Standards will address an entity's U.S. operations.
The leadership of an organization with successful diversity policies and practices demonstrates its commitment to diversity and inclusion. Leadership comes from the governing body, such as a board of directors, as well as senior officials and those managing the organization on a day-to-day basis. These Standards inform how an entity promotes diversity and inclusion in both employment and contracting and how it fosters a corporate culture that embraces diversity and inclusion.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The entity includes diversity and inclusion considerations in both employment and contracting as an important part of its strategic plan for recruiting, hiring, retention, and promotion.
• The entity has a diversity and inclusion policy that is approved and supported by senior leadership, including senior management and the board of directors.
• The entity provides regular progress reports to the board and senior management.
• The entity regularly conducts training and provides educational opportunities on equal employment opportunity and on diversity and inclusion.
• The entity has a senior level official, preferably with knowledge of and experience in diversity and inclusion policies and practices, who oversees and directs the entity's diversity and inclusion efforts. For example, this official may be an executive-level Diversity Officer (or equivalent position) with dedicated resources to support diversity strategies and initiatives.
• The entity takes proactive steps to promote a diverse pool of candidates, including women and minorities, in its hiring, recruiting, retention, and promotion, as well as in its selection of board members, senior management, and other senior leadership positions.
Many entities promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in their workforce by publicizing employment opportunities, creating relationships with minority and women professional organizations and educational institutions, creating a culture that values the contribution of all employees, and encouraging a focus on these objectives when evaluating the performance of managers. Entities with successful diversity and inclusion programs also regularly evaluate their programs and identify areas to be improved.
Entities use various analytical tools to evaluate a wide range of business objectives, including metrics to track and measure the inclusiveness of their workforce (
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The entity implements policies and practices related to workforce diversity and inclusion in a manner that complies with all applicable laws.
• The entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful employment discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.
• The entity has policies and practices that create diverse applicant pools for both internal and external opportunities that may include:
○ Outreach to minority and women organizations;
○ Outreach to educational institutions serving significant minority and women student populations; and
○ Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to attract minorities and women and to inform them of employment and promotion opportunities.
• The entity utilizes both quantitative and qualitative measurements to assess its workforce diversity and inclusion efforts. These efforts may be reflected, for example, in applicant tracking, hiring, promotions, separations (voluntary and involuntary), career development, and retention across all levels and occupations of the entity, including the executive and managerial ranks.
• The entity holds management at all levels accountable for diversity and inclusion efforts, for example by ensuring that such efforts align with business strategies and individual performance plans.
Companies increasingly understand the competitive advantage of having a broad selection of available suppliers to choose from with respect to factors such as price, quality, attention to detail, and future relationship building. A number of entities have achieved success at
As in the employment context, entities often use metrics to identify the baseline of how much they spend procuring and contracting for goods and services, how much they spend with minority-owned and women-owned businesses, and the availability of relevant minority-owned and women-owned businesses, as well as changes over time. Similarly, entities may use outreach to inform minority-owned and women-owned businesses (and affinity groups representing these constituencies) of these opportunities and of the procurement process.
In addition, entities' prime contractors often use subcontractors to fulfill the obligations of various contracts. The use of minority-owned and women-owned businesses as subcontractors provides valuable opportunities for both the minority-owned and women-owned businesses and the prime contractor. Entities may encourage the use of minority-owned and women-owned subcontractors by incorporating this objective in their business contracts.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The entity has a supplier diversity policy that provides for a fair opportunity for minority-owned and women-owned businesses to compete for procurement of business goods and services. This includes contracts of all types, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of the entity's assets, and the development of the entity's equity investments.
• The entity has methods to evaluate its supplier diversity, which may include metrics and analytics related to:
○ Annual procurement spending;
○ Percentage of contract dollars awarded to minority-owned and women-owned business contractors by race, ethnicity, and gender; and
○ Percentage of contracts with minority-owned and women-owned business sub-contractors.
• The entity has practices to promote a diverse supplier pool, which may include:
○ Outreach to minority-owned and women-owned contractors and representative organizations;
○ Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to attract minority-owned and women-owned firms and inform them of contracting opportunities; and
○ An ongoing process to publicize its procurement opportunities.
Transparency and publicity are important aspects of assessing diversity policies and practices. Greater awareness and transparency give the public information to assess those policies and practices. Entities publicize information about their diversity and inclusion efforts through normal business methods, which include displaying information on their Web sites, in their promotional materials, and in their annual reports to shareholders, if applicable. By making public an entity's commitment to diversity and inclusion, its plans for achieving diversity and inclusion, and the metrics it uses to measure success in both workplace and supplier diversity, an entity informs a broad constituency of investors, employees, potential employees, suppliers, customers, and the general community about its efforts. The publication of this information can make new markets accessible for minorities and women and illustrate the progress made toward an important business goal.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics, the entity is transparent with respect to its diversity and inclusion activities by making the following information available to the public annually through its Web site or other appropriate communication methods:
• The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan;
• The entity's policy on its commitment to diversity and inclusion;
• The entity's progress toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and procurement activities (which may include the entity's current workforce and supplier demographic profiles); and
• Opportunities available at the entity that promote diversity, which may include:
○ Current employment and procurement opportunities;
○ Forecasts of potential employment and procurement opportunities; and
○ The availability and use of mentorship and developmental programs for employees and contractors.
The Agencies interpret the term “assessment” to mean self-assessment. Entities that have successful diversity policies and practices allocate time and resources to monitoring and evaluating performance under their diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis. Entities are encouraged to disclose their diversity policies and practices, as well as information related to their assessments, to the Agencies and the public. Entities submitting information may designate such information as confidential commercial information as appropriate, and the Agencies will follow the Freedom of Information Act in the event of requests for particular submissions.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The entity uses the Standards to conduct self-assessments of its diversity policies and practices annually.
• The entity monitors and evaluates its performance under its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis.
• The entity provides information pertaining to the self-assessments of its diversity policies and practices to the OMWI Director of its primary federal financial regulator.
• The entity publishes information pertaining to its efforts with respect to the Standards.
The Agencies may use information submitted to them to monitor progress and trends in the financial services industry with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities and to identify and highlight those policies and practices that have been successful. The primary federal financial regulator will share information with other agencies when appropriate to support coordination of efforts and to avoid duplication. The OMWI Directors will also continue to reach out to regulated entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and methods of assessment. The Agencies may publish information disclosed to them, such as best practices, in any form that does not identify a particular entity or individual or disclose confidential business information.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of five individuals, 53 entities, and one vessel whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the individuals, entities, and vessel identified in this notice is effective June 4, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On June 4, 2015, the Associate Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the individuals, entities, and vessel listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations:
1. ALOARDI, Carlo Giovanni, Milan, Italy (individual) [CUBA].
2. CRUZ REYES, Antonio Pedro, Milan, Italy (individual) [CUBA].
3. HERNANDEZ CARBALLOSA, Alexis Eneilo, Milan, Italy (individual) [CUBA].
4. LOPEZ, Quirino Gutierrez, c/o ANGLO CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO., LTD., 7th Floor, Ibex House, the Minories, London EC3N 1DY, United Kingdom (individual) [CUBA].
5. ORS, Jose Antonio Rego, Tokyo, Japan (individual) [CUBA].
1. MARINE REGISTRATION COMPANY, Panama [CUBA].
2. CANIPEL S.A. (a.k.a. CANAPEL S.A.), c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
3. EAST ISLAND SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
4. NORTH ISLAND SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o UNION MARITIMA PORTUARIA, 9-Piso, Apartado B, Esquina Cuarteles y Pena Pobre 60, Havana Vieje, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
5. SOUTH ISLAND SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
6. WEST ISLAND SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o UNION MARITIMA PORTUARIA, 9-Piso, Apartado B, Esquina Cuarteles y Pena Pobre 60, Havana Vieja, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
7. BRADFIELD MARITIME CORPORATION INC., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
8. WADENA SHIPPING CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
9. ACEFROSTY SHIPPING CO., LTD., 171 Old Bakery Street, Valletta, Malta [CUBA].
10. ARION SHIPPING CO., LTD., 60 South Street, Valletta, Malta [CUBA].
11. GOLDEN COMET NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
12. GRETE SHIPPING CO. S.A., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
13. KASPAR SHIPPING CO. S.A., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
14. MARYOL ENTERPRISES INC., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
15. NAVIGABLE WATER CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
16. VALETTA SHIPPING CORPORATION, c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
17. ACE INDIC NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o ANGLO-CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO. LTD., 4th Floor, South Phase 2, South Quay Plaza II, 183, March Wall, London, United Kingdom [CUBA].
18. ACECHILLY NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o ANGLO-CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO. LTD., 4th Floor, South Phase 2, South Quay Plaza II, 183, March Wall, London, United Kingdom [CUBA].
19. AIRMORES SHIPPING CO. LTD. (a.k.a. AIMOROS SHIPPING CO. LTD.), c/o MELFI MARINE CORPORATION S.A., Oficina 7, Edificio Senorial, Calle 50, Apartado 31, Panama City 5, Panama [CUBA].
20. ANTILLANA SALVAGE CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA ANTILLANA DE SALVAMENTO, 4th Floor, Lonja del Comercio, Havana Vieja, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
21. ATAMALLO SHIPPING CO. LTD. (a.k.a. ANTAMALLO SHIPPING CO. LTD.), c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
22. BETTINA SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
23. EPAMAC SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
24. FLIGHT DRAGON SHIPPING LTD., c/o ANGLO-CARIBBEAN
25. HUNTSLAND NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o NIPPON CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO. LTD., 8th Floor, Tsukiji Hosoda Building, 2-1, Tsukiji 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan [CUBA].
26. HUNTSVILLE NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o NIPPON CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO. LTD., 8th Floor, Tsukiji Hosoda Building, 2-1, Tsukiji 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan [CUBA].
27. SOCIETA COMMERCIA MINERALI E METTALLI, SRL (a.k.a. SOCOMET, SPA), Milan, Italy [CUBA].
28. YAMARU TRADING CO., LTD., Tokyo, Japan [CUBA].
29. TRAMP PIONEER SHIPPING CO., c/o Anglo Caribbean Shipping Co., Ltd., 4th Floor, South Phase 2, South Quay Plaza, 183 Mars, London E14 9SH, United Kingdom; Panama [CUBA].
30. CARIBBEAN PRINCESS SHIPPING LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
31. CARIBBEAN QUEEN SHIPPING LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
32. SENANQUE SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
33. WHITE SWAN SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
34. CIMECO, SRL, Milan, Italy [CUBA].
35. DESARROLLO INDUSTRIAL CUBANO ESPANOL, S.A. (a.k.a. DICESA), Paseo De La Castellana 157, Madrid, Spain; Jose Lazaro Caldeano, 6-6, Madrid 28016, Spain [CUBA].
36. OCTUBRE HOLDING SOCIETE ANONIME (a.k.a. OCTOBER HOLDING COMPANY), Vaduz, Liechtenstein [CUBA].
37. QUIMINTER GMBH, Vienna, Austria [CUBA].
38. UNITED FAIR AGENCIES, 1202 Carrian Center, 151 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong [CUBA].
39. CARIBERIA, S.A., Spain [CUBA].
40. CORPORACION IBEROAMERICANA DEL COMERCIO (a.k.a. CIDECO), Spain [CUBA].
41. DURGACO, London, United Kingdom [CUBA].
42. GUAMATUR, Buenos Aires, Argentina [CUBA].
43. HABANOS TRADING, Geneva, Switzerland [CUBA].
44. PESCABRAVA, S.A., France [CUBA].
45. PESCABRAVA, S.A., Italy [CUBA].
46. PEONY SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o NORDSTRAND MARITIME & TRADING CO. LTD., 26 Skouze Street, Piraeus, Greece [CUBA].
47. PIRANHA NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o NORDSTRAND MARITIME & TRADING CO. LTD., 26 Skouze Street, Piraeus, Greece [CUBA].
48. REDESTOS SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
49. STANDWEAR SHIPPING CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
50. VIOLET NAVIGATION CO. LTD., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION MAMBISA, Apartado 543, San Ignacio 104, Havana, Cuba [CUBA].
51. PAMIT C. SHIPPING CO., LTD., Limassol, Cyprus [CUBA].
52. PIONEER SHIPPING LTD., 171 Old Bakery Street, Valletta, Malta; c/o Anglo Caribbean Shipping Co., Ltd., 4th Floor, South Phase 2, South Quay Plaza 2, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SH, United Kingdom [CUBA].
53. GUAMAR SHIPPING CO. S.A., c/o EMPRESA DE NAVEGACION CARIBE, Edificio Lonja del Comercio, Lamparilla 2, Caja Postal 1784, Havana 1, Cuba [CUBA].
1. STAR 1 Unknown vessel type (Canapel, S.A., Panama) (vessel) [CUBA].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals and three entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers.” Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of two individuals currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
The unblocking and removal from the list of SDN List of two individuals and three entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on June 4, 2015. Additionally, the update to the SDN List of the identifying information of the two individuals identified in this notice is also effective on June 4, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the
On June 4, 2015, the Associate Director of the Office of Global Targeting removed from the SDN List the individuals and entities listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, Jesus Maria Alejandro (a.k.a. “CHUCHO”; a.k.a. “EL PRIMO”; a.k.a. “SCUBI”; a.k.a. “SCUBY”), c/o GANADERIA ARIZONA, Medellin, Colombia; Calle 11 No. 23-80, Pereira, Colombia; Hacienda Arizona, Caucasia, Antioquia, Colombia; DOB 06 Nov 1975; POB Pereira, Colombia; Cedula No. 10026001 (Colombia); Passport AF400955 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
2. TRONCOSO POSSE, Jose Manuel, c/o INVERSIONES BRASILAR S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o AGROPECUARIA LINDARAJA S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 26 Nov 1953; POB Bogota, Colombia; nationality Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 19233258 (Colombia); Passport AE297484 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
1. AGROPECUARIA LINDARAJA S.A., Calle 4N No. 1N-10, Ofc. 901, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890327360-0 (Colombia) [SDNT].
2. GANADERIA ARIZONA, Carrera 43A No. 1 Sur-188 of. 903, Medellin, Colombia; Hacienda Arizona, Caucasia, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 10026001-7 (Colombia) [SDNT].
3. INVERSIONES BRASILAR S.A. (f.k.a. INVERSIONES RIVERA CAICEDO Y CIA S.C.S.; f.k.a. “INRICA”), Carrera 11 No. 73-44, Ofc. 803, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 891305286-2 (Colombia) [SDNT].
Additionally, on June 4, 2015, the Associate Director of the Office of Global Targeting updated the SDN record for the individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. CAMACHO VALLEJO, Francisco Jose, Calle 23 BN No. 5-37 of. 202, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 37 No. 6-36, Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 14443381 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT] (Linked To: CRETA S.A.; Linked To: ILOVIN S.A.; Linked To: JOSAFAT S.A.; Linked To: CAMACHO VALLEJO ASESORES E.U.; Linked To: CANADUZ S.A.; Linked To: AGROPECUARIA EL NILO S.A.).
2. QUINTANA FUERTES, Andres Fernando; DOB 03 Jul 1966; POB Candelaria, Valle, Colombia; nationality Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 16989000 (Colombia); Passport AI375038 (Colombia); alt. Passport 16989000 (Colombia) expires 13 Dec 2000 (individual) [SDNT] (Linked To: TARRITOS S.A.).
Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before July 10, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by email at
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Construction and Facilities Management, is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department Facilities (“the Committee”). In accordance with 38 U.S.C. 8105, the Committee advises the Secretary on all matters of structural safety in the construction and altering of medical facilities and recommends standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities. Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill current and upcoming vacancies on the Committee.
The Committee was established in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 8105.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 26, 2015.
All nominations should be submitted to Mr. Juan Archilla by email at
Mr. Juan Archilla, Office of Construction and Facilities Management (CFM), Department of Veterans Affairs, via email at
The Committee was established pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8105. The Committee responsibilities include:
(1) Providing advice to the Secretary of VA on all matters of structural safety in the construction and altering of medical facilities and recommending standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities.
(2) Reviewing of appropriate State and local laws, ordinances, building codes, climatic and seismic conditions, relevant existing information, and current research.
(3) Recommending changes to the current VA standards for structural safety, on a state or regional basis.
(4) Recommending the engagement of the services of other experts or consultants to assist in preparing reports on present knowledge in specific technical areas.
(5) Reviewing of questions regarding the application of codes and standards and making recommendations regarding new and existing facilities when requested to do so by VA.
CFM is requesting nominations for current and upcoming vacancies on the Committee. The Committee is composed of five members, in addition to ex-officio members. The Committee is required to include at least one architect and one structural engineer who are experts in structural resistance to fire, earthquake, and other natural disasters and who are not employees of the Federal Government. To satisfy this requirement and ensure the Committee has the expertise to fulfill its statutory objectives, VA seeks nominees from the following professions:
(1) ARCHITECT: Candidate must be a licensed Architect experienced in the design requirements of health care facilities. Expert knowledge in codes and standards for health care and life safety is required;
(2) PRACTICING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Candidate must have experience in both new building seismic analysis and design and strengthening of existing buildings in high seismic regions. Expert knowledge of building codes and standards, with a focus on seismic safety, is required. Experience designing for structural resistance to other natural disasters is desired. A licensed Structural Engineer or Professional Engineer with a focus on structural engineering is required;
(3) RESEARCH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Candidate must have experience leading experimental and/or computational research in the field of structural engineering to advance building structural performance and/or design methods against natural disasters, such as earthquakes, fire, hurricanes, tornados, etc.;
(4) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: Candidate must be an expert in earthquake geotechnical engineering and foundation engineering, with experience in the topics of liquefaction, earthquake ground motions, soil-structure interaction, and soil improvement. A practicing, licensed Professional Engineer with a focus on geotechnical engineering is required; and
(5) FIRE SAFETY ENGINEER: Candidate must be an expert in fire protection engineering and building codes and standards, in particular related to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). A practicing, licensed Professional Engineer with expert knowledge in fire protection systems and experience with life safety requirements is required.
Prior experience serving on nationally recognized professional and technical committees is also desired.
Nominations should be type written (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. At the Secretary's discretion, members may be reappointed to serve an additional term. All members will receive travel expenses and a per diem allowance in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation for any travel made in connection with their duties as members of the Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, gender, racial and ethnic minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential conventional ovens. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. DOE is proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. DOE is also announcing a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than August 10, 2015. See section VII Public Participation for details.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this notice.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for residential conventional cooking products, and provide docket number EE-2014-BT-STD-0005 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD15. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Title III, Part B
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. The proposed standards, which are the maximum allowable integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC), are shown in Table I-1. The integrated annual energy consumption includes active mode (including fan-only mode for conventional ovens), standby mode, and off mode energy use. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date three years after the publication of any final rule for this rulemaking. The proposed standards correspond to trial standard level (TSL) 2, which is described in section V.A. DOE also notes that any newly adopted performance standards for conventional ovens resulting from this current rulemaking would not affect the current prescriptive standards prohibiting constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products (10 CFR 430.32(j)).
As discussed in section III.B, DOE has decided to defer its decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further rulemaking. In both the test procedure NOPR published on January 30, 2013 (78 FR 6232, the January 2013 TP NOPR) and the test procedure supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) published on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the December 2014 TP SNOPR), DOE proposed amendments to the cooking products test procedure in Appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 430 that would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of induction cooking tops. After reviewing public comments on the December 2014 TP SNOPR, conducting interviews with manufacturers, and performing
Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of residential conventional ovens, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this notice.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for manufacturers of residential conventional ovens is $783.5 million in 2014$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 11.0 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $86.4 million in 2014$. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of residential conventional ovens, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this NOPR notice.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime energy savings from residential conventional oven products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the proposed standards (2019-2048), relative to the base case without the proposed standards, amount to 0.71 quadrillion Btu (quads).
A quad is equal to 10
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for ovens in residential conventional cooking products ranges from $4.7 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $11.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2019-2048.
In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings described above are estimated to result in cumulative emission reductions of 41.1 million metric tons (Mt)
The value of the CO
Table I-3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for residential conventional ovens.
The benefits and costs of these proposed standards, for products sold in 2019-2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the new or amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO
Although DOE believes that the values of operating savings and CO
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I-4. The results under
DOE's analysis
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for at least some, if not most, product classes covered by this proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as trial standard levels, and is considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for residential cooking products.
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which includes residential cooking products
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including residential conventional ovens, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) (3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for residential conventional cooking products address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards it adopts in the final rule.
DOE has also reviewed this proposed regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that the NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standards proposed herein by DOE achieve maximum net benefits. For further discussion of how this NOPR achieves maximum net benefits, see section V.
In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (April 2009 Final Rule), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for residential cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products (
Based on DOE's review of gas cooking products available on the market in the United States, DOE notes that there may be confusion regarding how the current standards apply to different pilot ignition systems. Specifically, DOE is aware of a gas range that is designed to heat and cook food based on the principle of heat storage. A low input rate burner continuously heats the cooking top surface and cast iron oven cavities, and maintains these components at a constant temperature. A secondary “pilot burner” is used to ignite the main burner and this pilot remains lit between cooking cycles as well as when the main burner is shut off for short periods of non-use. Although the secondary pilot may provide additional heating to the body of the range, its primary function is to ignite the main burner, and would thus be considered a constant burning pilot because it is a continuous gas flame used to ignite the gas at the main burner. It is the main burner that provides the primary source of heat for the cooking function of the range.
In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a constant burning pilot in conventional cooking products is considered to be a continuous gas flame having the primary purpose to ignite the gas at the burner(s) that is (are) used to heat or cook food and which remains lit between cooking cycles. The design and configuration, including whether it incorporates any air premixing or whether it has a secondary heating function, does not exclude the device from consideration as constant burning pilot.
DOE also notes that any newly adopted performance standards for conventional cooking products resulting from this current rulemaking would not affect the current prescriptive standards prohibiting constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)-(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating that elimination of standing pilots for conventional gas
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Based on this provision, DOE must publish by March 31, 2015, either a NOPR proposing new standards for conventional electric cooking products and/or amended standards for conventional gas cooking products
On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request for information (RFI) notice (the February 2014 RFI) to initiate the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. As part of the RFI, DOE sought input from the public to assist with its determination on whether new or amended standards pertaining to conventional cooking products are warranted. 79 FR 8337. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
As discussed in section II.A, 6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, or “cooking products.” DOE's regulations define “cooking products” as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units
DOE notes that conventional ranges are defined in 10 CFR 430.2 as a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance, consisting of a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens. In this rulemaking, DOE is not considering gas and electric conventional ranges as a distinct product category and is not basing its product classes on that category. Instead, DOE plans to consider energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens separately. Because ranges consist of both a cooking top and oven, any potential cooking top or oven standards would apply to the individual components of the range. DOE invites comment on its proposal to develop two distinct component standards under separate timetables, and whether issues of product design and development, consumer utility, and more broadly, cumulative regulatory burden concerns that could arise as a result of its proposal (see sections IV.J and VII.E). DOE anticipates issuing a NOPR for energy conservation standards for cooktops in the next year. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to clarify in the definitions of conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, in 10 CFR 430.2, that these include the individual cooking top or oven portion of a conventional range.
As part of the most recent standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products, DOE decided to exclude residential conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input rates, including products marketed as “commercial-style” or “professional-style,” from consideration of energy conservation standards due to a lack of available data for determining efficiency characteristics of those products. DOE considers these products to be gas cooking tops with burner input rates greater than 14,000 British thermal units (Btu)/hour (h) and gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also stated that the current DOE cooking products test procedures may not adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops and ovens with higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively planned to consider energy conservation standards for all residential conventional cooking products, including gas cooking products with higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that it may consider developing test procedures for these products and determine whether separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) commented that because there is no test procedure to test commercial-style products, they cannot effectively comment on how these products should be treated in a standards rulemaking, nor can DOE effectively evaluate their energy use. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2;
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs)) supported DOE's decision to consider standards for professional-style gas cooking products and commented that DOE should refer to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z83.11-2006/CSA Standard 1.8-2006 (R2011), “Gas Food Service Equipment,” when developing a definition for these products. (California IOUs, STD No. 11 at p. 1)
As discussed in section III.B, DOE proposed to amend the conventional cooking top test procedure in Appendix I to, among other things, measure the energy use of gas cooking tops with high burner input rates and to clarify that the existing conventional oven test procedure is appropriate for ovens with high burner input rates, including products marketed as commercial-style.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commented that DOE should separately define commercial and residential gas cooking products. NRDC noted that because of the availability of residential gas cooking tops with higher burner input rates previously associated with commercial use, these burner types are not what define commercial units. NRDC stated that the definitions should be based on more fundamental distinctions between commercial and residential products, such as configuration of the burners on the cooking top, number of burners, or number of high-input rate burners. (NRDC, STD No. 12 at p. 2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE is considering energy conservation standards for residential conventional cooking products. As discussed above, this includes residential conventional gas cooking products with high burner input rates, including those marketed as commercial-style. For these products, DOE tentatively concludes that the existing definitions for conventional cooking top, conventional oven, and conventional range accurately describe the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. In addition, DOE clarifies that the proposed scope of coverage for this rulemaking relates only to consumer products. Thus, this rule applies to those residential conventional cooking products that are of a type which, to any significant extent, are distributed into commerce for personal use or consumption. (
DOE notes that the test procedures for conventional ranges, cooking tops, and ovens found at Appendix I do not address all possible types of combined cooking products (
AHAM and Whirlpool agreed with DOE's tentative determination to not consider standards for combined cooking products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 3; Whirlpool STD No. 13 at p. 2) AHAM stated that combined products are too diverse and probably do not occupy enough of the market to justify coverage by DOE. AHAM stated that DOE has not provided sufficient analysis on each of these products to justify their coverage, nor has DOE provided adequate definitions. Thus, AHAM continues to oppose the inclusion of combined products in the scope of covered products in the conventional cooking products rulemakings. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 3) In the absence of comments opposing this determination and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not considering energy conservation standards in this NOPR for products that may combine a conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality that is not a conventional cooking product.
As part of this rulemaking, DOE intends only to address energy conservation standards for conventional ovens, including conventional ovens that are a part of conventional ranges. In response to the concurrent cooking products test procedure proposed rulemaking, DOE received a number of comments from interested parties that presented information and arguments for deferring the rulemaking process to consider standards for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable, and reproducible test procedure could be developed. DOE also conducted a series of manufacturer interviews and performed additional testing in order to confirm stakeholder comments that additional study was warranted before establishing both a test procedure and amended standards for conventional cooking tops. These comments and DOE's response are discussed below.
In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the cooking products test procedure in Appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 430 that would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products;
AHAM commented that DOE should rely on the finalized version of the test procedure (
AHAM and Whirlpool commented that a test procedure should be developed to address commercial-style cooking products if DOE plans to evaluate them in a standards analysis. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 1) AHAM also commented that DOE should either proceed without addressing commercial-style products as it did for the April 2009 Final Rule or delay the rulemaking analysis until there is a finalized test procedure that can measure commercial-style products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 4, 6, 7) AHAM added that it cannot provide data regarding the differences between residential-style and commercial-style gas cooking products without a test procedure to measure higher input rated burners. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7) The California IOUs supported amending the test procedure to measure the energy use of residential conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input rates. (California IOUs, STD No. 11 at p. 2)
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR to specify different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops.
AHAM formally requested an extension of the comment period for the December 2014 TP SNOPR, citing the difficulty the members had procuring the specified hybrid test block materials, and noting that many manufacturers were not able to properly assess the new specifications, testing variation, repeatability, and reproducibility of the proposed test procedure before the comment period closed. (AHAM, TP No. 14 at p. 1) AHAM also expressed concern with DOE's choice to pursue an accelerated rulemaking schedule for cooking products, stating that DOE's deadlines did not allow for a thorough technical examination. AHAM believes DOE has not conducted adequate outreach to manufacturers, has not been sufficiently transparent in its data collection and analysis, and has failed to adhere to its own Process Improvement Rule, which calls for all of the above. AHAM asked DOE to conduct more substantive dialogue with stakeholders that would result in more in-depth comments on the test procedure SNOPR and advised DOE that the cooking top test procedure as proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR may result in technical problems. (AHAM, TP No. 18 at pp. 1-2)
Both the BSH Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) and General Electric Appliances (GE) confirmed that delays associated with acquiring the hybrid test block materials meant they needed additional time to evaluate DOE's proposed cooking top test procedure. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 2; GE, TP No. 17 at p. 1) BSH commented that the proposed hybrid test block method fails to cover several aspects which are necessary to enhance the reproducibility of measuring cooking top energy consumption, such as test load sizing and positioning, and recommended DOE take into account important specifications which are already fixed in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, “Household electric appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for measuring performance” (IEC Standard 60350-2). (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 1) Further, both manufacturers and AHAM suggested that DOE specify additional test block diameters because the test block sizes proposed by DOE do not adequately reflect the surface unit sizes currently available on the market. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 5; GE, TP No. 17 at p 2; AHAM, TP No. 18 at p. 2)
Stakeholders also expressed a significant number of concerns with the use of thermal grease. GE noted that since receiving DOE's proposal, it has not been able to replicate the DOE test results using the methods described. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2) Specifically, GE observed that the aluminum body slid off the stainless steel base during the test, that the thermal grease dried out, and that the amount of grease between the blocks changed from one test to another. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2) Both manufacturers and AHAM requested that DOE specify an operating temperature range for the thermal grease as well as an application thickness to address these issues, but also noted that the thermal conductivity and viscosity of the grease may still change over time or after repeated use at high temperatures. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 11; GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2; AHAM, TP No. 18 at p. 3) GE further commented that the variation introduced by the hybrid test block due to block construction, flatness, thermal grease, and inadequate sizing, may be small sources of variation individually, but collectively, these issues result in a test method that is incapable of being able to reliably discern efficiency differences between similar products, alternate technology options, and product classes. Thus, GE believes the test method proposed for conventional cooking tops in the December 2014 TP SNOPR results in too much variability to serve as the basis for establishing a standard. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 3)
The California IOUs also stated that they prefer an alternative to the hybrid test block and recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods to measure the cooking efficiency of conventional cooking tops. Specifically, the California IOUs requested that DOE align the residential cooking product test methods with existing industry test procedures, such as ASTM F1521-12 and IEC Standard 60350-2. (California IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 1) The California IOUs commented that they plan to conduct additional testing to better characterize the differences between the water-heating and hybrid test block test procedures, and will provide these results to DOE. According to the California IOUs, the differences in test procedure standard deviation between the hybrid test block and water-heating test method as presented in the December 2014 TP SNOPR did not sufficiently show that the hybrid test block method is more repeatable than a water-heating method. (California IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 2) Additionally, the California IOUs believe cooking
In February and March of 2015, DOE conducted a series of interviews with manufacturers of conventional cooking products, representing the majority of the U.S. market, regarding the proposed cooking top test procedure. Manufacturers agreed that the hybrid test block method, as proposed, presented many issues which had not yet been addressed, and which left the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure in question. These concerns were similar to those expressed in written comments but came from a larger group of contributing manufacturers and included:
• Difficulty obtaining the hybrid test block materials;
• Difficulty obtaining and applying the thermal grease without more detailed specifications (
• Difficulty testing induction cooking tops that use different programming techniques to prevent overheating (some manufacturers still observed that power to the heating elements cut off prematurely during testing with the hybrid test block, despite adding thermal grease); and
• The need for larger test block sizes to test electric surface units having 12-inch and 13-inch diameters and gas surface units with high input rates.
Interviewed manufacturers that produce and sell products in Europe overwhelmingly supported the use of water-heating test method and harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 for measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers noted that the benefits of pursuing a test method similar to the IEC water-heating method include compatibility with all electric cooking top types, additional cookware diameters to account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and the test load's ability to represent a real-world cooking top load.
For these reasons, DOE has decided to continue the energy conservation standards rulemaking for conventional ovens but to defer its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking tops is finalized. At such time, DOE will consider further modifications to DOE's cooking top active mode test procedure and, on the basis of such an amended test procedure, DOE will analyze potential energy conservation standards for cooking top energy consumption. DOE invites data and information that will allow it to further conduct the analysis of cooking tops, particularly when using a water-heating method to evaluate energy consumption. DOE anticipates issuing additional notices for cooking top test procedures and standards in order to obtain public input on DOE's updated proposals. As part of these notices, DOE will carefully consider and address any cooking top-related comments on the December 2014 TP SNOPR and the February 2014 RFI that remain relevant.
DOE's test procedures for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 430.
DOE established the test procedures in a final rule published in the
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed modifications to the test block used to evaluate conventional cooking top energy consumption. As discussed in section III.B, DOE plans to consider further modifications to DOE's cooking top active mode test procedure in a future rulemaking. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to incorporate methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarified that the existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and provided a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for conventional ovens in this NOPR based on these proposals in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE intends to update the standards rulemaking analyses based on any final amendments related to ovens developed as part of the concurrent test procedure rulemaking. DOE recognizes that interested parties need sufficient time to evaluate the proposed energy conservation standards using the final test procedure for conventional ovens. DOE considers the stated energy conservation standards rulemaking process to provide sufficient time to submit meaningful comments based on a finalized DOE conventional oven test procedure.
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential conventional ovens, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes, and information from the previous rulemaking. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.3 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2019 to 2048).
DOE uses its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet models to estimate energy savings from potential new and amended standards. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE calculates national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For electricity, natural gas, and oil, DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment, the FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
To calculate primary energy savings, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) most recent
To adopt standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in
EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards.
The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H.2, DOE uses spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this notice would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.
DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from new or amended standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.
New or amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports the emissions impacts from each TSL it considered in section IV.K of this notice. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.11 of this proposed rule.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the proposed standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a spreadsheet set that provides shipments forecasts and calculates national energy savings and net present value resulting from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available at the Web site for this rulemaking:
For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens based on energy source (
• Electric ovens—standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
• Electric ovens—self-clean oven;
• Gas ovens—standard oven with or without a catalytic line; and
• Gas ovens—self-clean oven.
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively plans to maintain the product classes for conventional ovens from the previous standards rulemaking, as presented above. DOE stated that it may consider whether separate product classes are warranted for conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates. 79 FR 8337, 8341-8342 (Feb. 12, 2014).
Based on DOE's review of gas conventional ovens and ranges available on the U.S. market, and based on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as part of the engineering analysis described in section IV.C and Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE notes that the self-cleaning function of the self-clean oven may employ methods other than a high temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning action. Specifically, DOE is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike catalytically-lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that is user-selectable and must be tested separately. In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a self-clean electric or gas conventional oven is an oven that has a user-selectable mode separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to heat or cook food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking deposits from the oven cavity walls.
With regard to commercial-style products, AHAM commented that without a definition or test procedure for such products, neither AHAM nor DOE can determine at this stage whether these products would warrant a separate product class. AHAM noted that DOE should first develop a test procedure for these products to allow for analysis of them. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 12)
Based on DOE's review of the residential conventional gas ovens available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically have an input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h whereas residential gas ovens marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.
As discussed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the test load for ovens as specified in the existing DOE test procedure in Appendix I is appropriate for gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 79 FR at 71915-71916. As a result, DOE conducted testing for this NOPR to determine whether conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates warrant establishing a separate product class. DOE evaluated the cooking efficiency of the eight conventional gas ovens listed in Table IV-1. Five of these ovens had burners rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining three had burner input rates ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h.
The measured cooking efficiencies for ovens with burner input rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower than for ovens with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity volume. However, DOE also noted that the conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates in DOE's test sample were marketed as commercial-style and had greater total thermal mass, including heavier racks and thicker cavity walls, even after normalizing for cavity volume. To determine whether the lower measured efficiency of these ovens was due to the higher input rate burners, DOE isolated the heating element from the thermal mass of the oven by placing 1-inch thick insulation on all surfaces inside the oven cavity, except for the bottom of the cavity where the burner was located, and ran tests according to the DOE test procedure. By adding insulation, heat transfer to the cavity walls was minimized and retained in the cavity to heat the test block. DOE selected test unit 3 and test unit 8 in Table IV-1 for test because of the similarity in cavity volume, their difference in efficiency, and their differing input rate (18,000 Btu/h and 30,000 Btu/h, respectively). Figure IV.1 displays the resulting test block temperature increase as a function of test time, measured with and without insulation lining the interior oven cavity walls.
Without the added insulation inside the oven cavity, the temperature rise in the test block was similar for each oven, despite the large difference in burner input rate. In contrast, by adding insulation inside the cavity, the test block temperature in the 30,000 Btu/h oven increased at a faster rate than in the 18,000 Btu/h oven. This suggests that much of the energy input to the 30,000 Btu/h oven goes to heating the added mass of the cavity, rather than the test load, resulting in relatively lower measured efficiency.
DOE also investigated the time it took each oven in the test sample to heat the test load to a final test temperature of 234 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above its initial temperature, specified in the DOE test procedure in Appendix I. As shown in Table IV-2, gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load significantly faster than the ovens with lower burner input rates, and two out of the three units with the higher burner input rates took longer than the average time to heat the test load. Therefore, DOE preliminarily concludes that there is no unique utility associated with faster cook times that is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h.
In response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR, Sub Zero commented that categorizing all ovens under the term conventional cooking suggests that DOE is unaware of the significant positive differences provided to a subset of consumers by commercial-style products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 2) If standards are to be proposed, Sub Zero requested that the product classes be significantly expanded in number to recognize the unique and important utility and performance attributes associated with “high performance” cooking products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3) Sub Zero suggested that these products offer residential consumers performance similar to that found in restaurants, at a safety and convenience level that is acceptable for residential use. Commercial-style ovens would thus include gas ranges in widths up to 60 inches, gas ovens up to 36 inches wide with high output infrared broilers and convection fans, dual fuel ranges combining gas cooktops with sealed burners and large, electric self-cleaning convection ovens that use hidden bake elements and multiple heating circuits for added control, as well as separate convection elements or multiple convection fans. Sub Zero believes that analysis based largely on the traditional 30-inch wide gas or electric range cannot adequately evaluate the very different performance attributes offered by high performance products which are essential to consumer utility. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 2)
In selecting a test sample to support DOE's engineering analysis, discussed in section IV.C.2 and Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE attempts to capture a wide range of products having features that may result in the determination of additional product classes. DOE included two commercial-style gas ovens greater than 30-inches in width as part of its test sample. DOE is not aware of data showing the improved cooking performance of these products due to the features described in the comments as compared to conventional gas ovens not marketed as commercial-style or commercial-style gas ovens less than or equal to 30 inches in width. All of the commercial-style ovens evaluated by DOE contained features such as infrared broilers, convection fans, and hidden bake elements, but DOE observed that many of the same features were also available in conventional gas ovens with lower input rates. DOE welcomes data demonstrating the improved cooking performance associated with the features for commercial-style gas ovens with widths greater than 30-inches that result in increased energy consumption, but are not available in conventional gas ovens with lower input rates or commercial-style gas ovens with widths of 30 inches or less.
Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional discussions with manufacturers, DOE determined that the major differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower burner input rates and those with higher input rates, including those marketed as commercial-style, was design and construction related to aesthetics rather than improved cooking performance. Further, DOE did not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE is not proposing to establish a separate product class for conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates.
As discussed in section III.B, in the October 2012 TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring fan-only mode.
In summary, DOE proposes the product classes listed in Table IV-3 for the NOPR.
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to improve energy efficiency. Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for this equipment.
In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that based on a preliminary review of the cooking products market and information published in recent trade publications, technical reports, and manufacturer literature, the results of the technology screening analysis performed during the previous standards rulemaking remain largely relevant for this rulemaking. 79 FR 8337, 8341 (Feb. 12, 2014). DOE stated in the February 2014 RFI that it planned to consider the technology options presented in Table IV-4 for conventional ovens. 79 FR 8337, 8342-8343 (Feb. 12, 2014).
In response to the February 2014 RFI, DOE received a number of comments regarding the technology options for conventional ovens.
AHAM commented that forced convection should not be considered a technology option for gas or electric ovens. AHAM stated that only some foods can be cooked with convection and that accelerating the cooking time or baking rate for other foods will not produce acceptable results. Accordingly, AHAM believes this technology option would impact consumer utility. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 5) DOE recognizes that using forced convection for cooking certain foods may be undesirable. DOE is not considering forced convection as a complete replacement to the conventional bake cooking function. Instead DOE considered forced convection as a separate heating mode in addition to the bake function for the engineering analysis. DOE also notes that the test procedure in Appendix I averages the energy consumption measured during bake-only mode with the energy consumption measured during forced convection mode to calculate the total cooking efficiency and IAEC for the oven, representing equal use of forced convection and bake-only cooking cycles. As a result, DOE is retaining forced convection as a technology option for this NOPR.
AHAM and Whirlpool commented that reducing the vent rate should not be considered because it could result in incomplete combustion. In addition, AHAM stated that it would impact the ability of the product to manage moisture release. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) As noted in the 2009 TSD, DOE believes that vent size of both standard electric and standard gas ovens could be reduced while maintaining a satisfactory combustion environment. Since all Self-Clean ovens are already designed with this technology, no new improvements are required by the industry to incorporate this technology option. DOE noted in the 2009 TSD that an increase of approximately 0.62 absolute percentage points for standard electric ovens and 0.5 absolute percentage points for standard gas ovens was possible with this technology option. As a result, DOE retained reduced vent rate as a technology option for standard ovens for this NOPR.
AHAM commented that improved door seals may not provide a significant improvement in efficiency. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6) DOE notes that door seals for standard ovens generally consist of a strip of silicone rubber, while Self-Clean ovens usually incorporate fiberglass seals. Because some venting is required for proper cooking performance, a complete seal on the oven is undesirable. As DOE noted in the 2009 TSD, the oven door seals can be improved further without sealing the oven completely. Based on discussions with manufacturers, DOE believes that fiberglass seals can be installed in standard ovens to improve efficiency. As a result, DOE retained improved door seals as a technology option for standard ovens.
Whirlpool commented that it has already optimized insulation in its ovens for safety reasons. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) DOE noted in the 2009 TSD that standard ovens used low-density insulation (1.09 pounds (lb)/ft
Whirlpool commented that there may be savings associated with steam cooking realized by the user, but these savings would likely not be measured in the DOE test procedure. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) While there are several residential steam ovens currently on the market, DOE is unaware of any test procedures that accurately measure the energy use of the steam cooking mode while producing repeatable and reproducible results. As a result, DOE is unaware of any data regarding the efficiency of steam cooking. For these reasons, DOE did not consider steam cooking in the analysis.
Whirlpool commented that there could be savings for gas ovens from electronic spark ignition over a glo-bar igniter, which could use 250-500W throughout the cooking cycle. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) As discussed in section IV.C.2, based on DOE's testing, DOE agrees that switching from a glo-bar to an electronic spark ignition system would result in energy savings. As a result, DOE is maintaining electronic spark ignition as a technology option for this NOPR.
Based on DOE's review of products on the market, DOE notes that radiant burners for gas ovens are only incorporated into broiling, which is a secondary cooking function not measured under the test procedure; energy use is instead measured during the primary bake function. As a result, the benefits of radiant burners are not measured by the current test procedure. Accordingly, DOE eliminated radiant burners in gas ovens from further analysis.
In the previous standards rulemaking, DOE noted that oven separators had only been researched, but never put into production. 72 FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 15, 2007). Based on DOE's review of products on the market, DOE notes that one manufacturer offers a conventional electric oven with an oven separator. As a result, DOE plans to consider oven separators as a technology option for electric ovens.
In addition to the technology options presented in Table IV-4, DOE considered an additional technology option for optimizing the burner and cavity design for gas ovens based on product testing and reverse engineering analyses conducted for this NOPR. As described in section IV.A.2 and further in section IV.C.2, DOE's testing indicated that reducing the thermal mass of the oven cavity can increase cooking efficiency. Because oven cavity and burner design are interdependent, DOE is proposing to consider optimized burner and cavity design as a technology option for increasing efficiency for gas ovens consistent with products available on the market rather than the reduced thermal mass technology option considered for the previous rulemaking.
Table IV-5 lists the proposed technology options that DOE is considering for the NOPR.
DOE seeks comment on the use of optimized burner and cavity design (and other options listed in Table IV-5) to meet the proposed efficiency levels discussed in section I.A.1.b. (See section VII.E)
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
For conventional ovens, DOE screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, and reflective surfaces, for the reasons that follow.
Although some analyses have shown reduced energy consumption by increasing the thickness of the insulation in the oven cabinet walls and doors from two inches to four inches, consumer utility would be negatively impacted by the necessary reduction in cavity volume to maintain the same oven footprint and overall cabinet volume. Therefore, DOE screened out added insulation. The improved insulation design option, however, will be retained, because insulation with a higher density (
The last working prototype of a bi-radiant oven known to DOE was tested in the 1970s. The technology requires a low-emissivity cavity, electronic controls, and highly absorptive cooking utensils. The need for specialized cookware and cavity maintenance issues negatively impact consumer utility. Therefore, DOE screened out bi-radiant ovens from further analysis.
DOE is not aware of any ovens that utilize halogen lamps alone as the heating element, and no data were found or submitted to demonstrate how efficiently halogen elements alone perform relative to conventional ovens. DOE believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen lamps for use in
Whirlpool commented that oven door windows are a key consumer utility and purchase driver, and there may even be more energy used from increased door openings to check on food (associated with no oven door window) versus looking through the window. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) DOE notes that the 2009 TSD reported a small annual energy savings associated with no oven door window, but that consumer practices of opening the door to inspect the food while cooking could negate any benefit. Comments during manufacturer interviews and comments from stakeholders in previous rulemakings agreed that removing the window was not a feasible option for most ovens. 63 FR 48038, 48040-48041 (Sep. 8, 1998); 72 FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 15, 2007). Reduced consumer utility and the potential for increased energy use along with decreased safety due to the additional door openings, justify elimination of this design option from further analysis. In addition, DOE addresses the efficiency impact of double-pane or other highly insulated oven door windows by means of the reduced conduction losses design option, which has been retained for further analysis.
Whirlpool commented that reflective surfaces would be very difficult to implement correctly. Whirlpool stated that there would be reduced consumer savings if the surface gets dirty and reduced consumer functionality from the appearance of stains. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) In the 2009 TSD, DOE noted that manufacturers have stated that it has been very difficult to obtain satisfactory cooking performance with reflective surfaces and that reflective surfaces degrade after the first baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. DOE also noted in the 2009 TSD that is uncertain whether, or how much, energy savings is realizable with this technology option. Because of the uncertainty of the potential energy savings and the general lack of sophistication in the technology in terms of maintaining clean, reflective surfaces over the lifetime of the product, DOE screened out this technology option from further analysis.
Based on the screening analysis, DOE considered the design options listed in Table IV-6 for conventional ovens.
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products from the baseline up to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class.
DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding design options to a baseline model that will improve its efficiency (
In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that in order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, it anticipated having to structure its engineering analysis using a design-option approach, supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design option combination. In addition, DOE stated that it intends to consider cost-efficiency data from the 2009 TSD. 79 FR 8337, 8347 (Feb. 12, 2014). DOE maintained this approach for this NOPR. DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers of conventional ovens to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design options used to increase product efficiency, and their associated manufacturing costs.
To develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the engineering analysis, DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on performance-related features and technologies advertised in product literature. DOE's test sample included 1 gas wall oven, 7 gas ranges, 5 electric wall ovens, and 2 electric ranges for a total of 15 conventional ovens covering all of the product classes considered in this NOPR. The test units are described in detail in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Each test unit was tested according to the oven test procedure clarifications proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE then conducted physical teardowns on each test unit to develop a manufacturing cost model and to evaluate key design features. DOE supplemented its reverse engineering analyses by conducting manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback on efficiency levels, design options, inputs for the manufacturing cost model, and resulting manufacturing costs. DOE used the results from testing, reverse engineering, and manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency levels and manufacturing costs discussed in sections IV.C.3 and IV.C.4.
Table IV-7 and Table IV-8 present the testing results for the conventional gas and electric ovens, respectively.
A baseline unit is a product that just meets current Federal energy conservation standards. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in several phases of the NOPR analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy ELs to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher EL to the price of a unit at the baseline.
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE initially developed baseline efficiency levels by considering the current standards for conventional gas ovens and the baseline efficiency levels for conventional electric ovens from the previous standards rulemaking analysis. DOE developed tentative baseline efficiency levels for the February 2014 RFI considering the current test procedure in appendix I. The baseline efficiency levels proposed in the February 2014 RFI are presented in Table IV-9. DOE developed baseline efficiency levels for standby mode and off mode based on test data presented in the microwave oven test procedure SNOPR.
AHAM commented that, while they agreed fan-only mode should be considered, DOE should gather more data before determining appropriate
DOE developed baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR considering both data from the previous standards rulemaking and the measured energy use for the test units. As discussed in section IV.C.2, DOE conducted testing for all units in its test sample to measure IAEC, which includes energy use in active mode (including fan-only mode) and standby mode. DOE also requested energy use data as part of the manufacturer interviews. However, because manufacturers are not currently required to conduct testing according to the DOE test procedure, very little energy use information was available.
The baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR differ from those presented in the February 2014 RFI. DOE compared the minimum cooking efficiency measured in its test sample to the minimum cooking efficiency levels assumed for the previous standards rulemaking analysis. Often, the lowest measured efficiency in DOE's test sample for this NOPR was lower than the values for the previous rulemaking.
To update the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, first DOE derived a new relationship between IAEC and cavity volume as discussed in section I.A.1.c. Using the slope from the previous rulemaking, DOE selected new intercepts corresponding to the ovens in its test sample with the lowest efficiency, so that no ovens in the test sample were cut off by the baseline curve. DOE then set baseline standby energy consumption for conventional ovens equal to that of the oven/range with the highest standby energy consumption in DOE's test sample to maintain the full functionality of controls for consumer utility. While only DOE test data was available to validate the baseline equation for gas ovens, DOE compared the new baseline equation for electric ovens with data available in the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) databases, which showed that DOE's assumptions for slopes and intercepts reasonably represented the market. A detailed discussion of DOE's derivation of the cavity volume relationship is provided Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
In addition to the product classes proposed in the February 2014 RFI, DOE is also proposing separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens as discussed in section IV.A.2. As a result, DOE developed separate baseline efficiency levels for each proposed product class based on testing conducted for this NOPR. The proposed baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR are presented in Table IV-10. After receiving manufacturer feedback and reviewing products currently on the market, DOE determined that a cavity volume of 3.9 ft
For each product class, DOE analyzes several efficiency levels and determines the incremental cost at each of these levels. For the February 2014 RFI, DOE tentatively proposed the incremental efficiency levels presented in Table IV-11 through Table IV-14. DOE developed these levels based primarily on the efficiency levels presented in the 2009 TSD, adjusted to account for the proposed and amended test procedures. DOE also considered efficiency levels for standby mode and off mode associated with changing conventional linear power supplies to switch-mode power supplies and the Commission of the European Communities Regulation 1275/2008 (hereinafter “Ecodesign regulation”), which requires products to have a maximum standby power of 1 W. 79 FR 8337, 8345-8346 (Feb. 12, 2014).The efficiency levels presented in the February 2014 RFI are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 3.9 ft
In response to the February 2014 RFI, AHAM disagreed with DOE's consideration of the 1-W Ecodesign regulation standby requirements because products sold in the European Union are different from the products sold in the United States. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6) DOE reevaluated the efficiency levels associated with standby power improvements based on design options identified during product testing and reverse engineering rather than considering an efficiency level specifically associated with the1-W Ecodesign regulation standby requirement.
Laclede commented that DOE's assumption of 3.5 amp × 110 volt continuous consumption of a typical glo-bar ignition module would mean its consuming 385 W (0.385 kW) per hour. Laclede stated that they believe this may be the worst-case scenario and may make it appear that further efficiency improvements are possible. However, Lacelede stated that further efficiency improvements in glo-bar may lead to higher costs for gas cooking products without sufficient economic benefits. Laclede's testing data indicates glo-bar ignition system consumption of only 0.16 kWh. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 2) Laclede also commented that it appears that DOE considers the electric load from glo-bar ignition systems as of no value to the thermal process of cooking in the oven. Laclede contends this electric resistance load in gas ovens most likely does contribute to the cooking process and DOE will need to provide transparent and robust analyses to explain this relationship. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at pp. 2-3)
Based on DOE's testing of units in its test sample, electric glo-bar ignition systems consumed between 330 W and 450 W and ranged between 0.141 kWh and 0.261 kWh per cycle, with an average of 0.202 kWh per cycle. DOE notes that the glo-bar energy consumption may vary depending on burner and cavity design (
For the NOPR, DOE developed incremental efficiency levels for each product class by first considering information from the 2009 TSD. In cases where DOE identified design options during testing and reverse engineering teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency
Table IV-15 through Table IV-18 show the incremental efficiency levels for each product class, including whether the efficiency level is from the 2009 TSD or based on testing for the NOPR. The efficiency levels are normalized based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft
The conventional oven efficiency levels detailed above are predicated upon baseline ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft
DOE established the slopes by first evaluating the data from the 2009 TSD, which presented the relationship between measured energy factor (EF) and cavity volume, then translated from EF to IAEC considering the range of cavity volume for the majority of products available on the market. DOE believes these slopes continue to be relevant based on DOE's testing. For electric ovens, DOE considered the data for standard and self-clean ovens available in the Natural Resources Canada product databases.
Based on the analyses discussed above, DOE developed the cost-efficiency results for each product class shown in Table IV-21. Where available, DOE developed incremental manufacturing production costs (MPCs) based on manufacturing cost modeling of test units in its sample featuring the proposed design options. For design options that were not observed in DOE's sample of test units for this NOPR, DOE used the incremental manufacturing costs developed as part of the 2009 TSD, then adjusted the values to reflect changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Producer Price Index (PPI) for household cooking appliance manufacturing.
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires DOE to consider “any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
In a response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR, Sub Zero commented that heavier gauge materials provide customers with extended product life, quality, functionality, and durability. Sub Zero also commented that that full extension oven racks provided in these products provide consumer utility. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3)
In response to the February 2014 RFI, AHAM and Whirlpool commented that new energy conservation standards could likely impact the utility of conventional ovens in the following ways:
• A standard could lower burner input rates, which will impact cooking times. Higher burner input rates allow for quicker cooking time, which is an important consumer utility;
• A standard could result in smaller oven windows. Consumers desire larger windows in order to view the food during cooking without opening the oven door. Smaller windows could result in more door openings, and thus increase energy use;
• A standard could also result in the removal of accent lighting and large displays which are preferred consumer features. There is reduced consumer utility from further reducing standby power from what products use today. According to Whirlpool, the market is still pushing manufacturers to add more advanced electronics that use more standby power. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at pp. 5, 8).
Accordingly, AHAM and Whirlpool opposed amendment of the existing standards for cooking products. AHAM and Whirlpool stated that not only would amended standards fail to be technologically feasible or economically justified, but they would also impact the utility of cooking products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 8).
DOE conducted the engineering analysis by considering design options that are consistent with products currently on the market, and as a result, DOE did not consider changes that would result in smaller oven windows or removal of accent lighting and display features. In addition, as discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE noted that gas ovens with higher burner input rates did not have significantly faster cooking times when tested according to the DOE test procedure in Appendix I. This is likely due in large part to the fact that gas-cooking products with higher burner input rates marketed as commercial-style often have significantly larger thermal masses, which absorb a significant amount of additional heat. DOE is also not aware of data justifying how added thermal mass improves durability, extends product life, or provides additional consumer utility as compared to standard residential-style ovens. As a result, DOE does not believe that any of the design options and efficiency levels considered in this NOPR would impact the consumer utility of conventional ovens, as suggested by AHAM and Whirlpool. However DOE welcomes continued feedback on this topic, including how the efficiency levels and technology options presented in Table IV-15 through Table IV-18 may affect consumer utility (see section VII.E).
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the MPC estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin. For conventional cooking products, the main parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers.
Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers of the products; (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products.
The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes conventional cooking products.
For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.
In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE included sales taxes in the final appliance retail prices. DOE used an Internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for conventional ovens.
The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy consumption of ovens at the considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the NIA to establish the savings in
For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE utilized a 2004
DOE's energy use analysis estimated the range of energy use of cooking products in the field,
From RECS 2009, DOE developed household samples for each product class. For each household using a conventional cooking product, RECS provides data on the frequency of use and number of meals cooked in the following bins: (1) Less than once per week, (2) once per week, (3) a few times per week, (4) once per day, (5) two times per day, and (6) three or more times per day. Thus, DOE utilized the frequency of use to define the variability of the annual energy consumption. Conducting the analysis in this manner captures the observed variability in annual energy consumption while maintaining the average annual energy consumption. To determine the variability of cooking product energy consumption, DOE first equated the weighted-average cooking frequency from RECS with the average energy use values based on CA RASS and FSEC studies. DOE then varied the annual energy consumption for each RECS household based on its reported cooking frequency. Thus, DOE utilized the range in frequency of use to define the variability of the annual energy consumption.
Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD describes the energy use analysis in detail.
AHAM expressed objections to DOE's reliance on RECS 2009 for analyses, stating that it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare the results to the energy use measured in a controlled test procedure situation. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7) DOE utilized RECS 2009 only to characterize variability of usage across various consumers. For representative energy use DOE relied on other studies and surveys to establish baseline energy consumption.
Whirlpool noted that cooking product energy use is unique from other major appliances in that there is a wide variation amongst consumers, with consumer behavior as a key determinant. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 8) DOE acknowledges that consumer behavior is a key determinant of the eventual energy use by the product. To characterize the variability in usage across consumers, DOE utilized data from RECS 2009, as described above.
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to evaluate the economic impacts of potential energy conservation standards for cooking products on individual consumers. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the product, including purchase and installation expense and operating costs (energy expenditures, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The PBP is the number of years it would take for the consumer to recover the increased costs of purchasing a higher efficiency product through energy savings. To calculate LCC, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the product.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to an estimate of the base-case product efficiency distribution. The base-case estimate reflects the market in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards, including the market for products that exceed the current energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
DOE calculated the LCC and payback periods for conventional ovens for a nationally representative set of housing units selected from RECS 2009. By using a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with cooking product use.
For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the cooking product and the appropriate energy price. DOE first calculated the LCC associated with a baseline cooking product for each household. To calculate the LCC savings and PBP associated with products meeting higher efficiency standards, DOE substituted the baseline unit with more efficient designs.
As part of the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed data that it used to establish product prices, installation costs, annual household energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the total installed cost and (2) inputs for calculating the operating costs. DOE models the uncertainty and the variability in the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis using Monte Carlo simulations and probability distributions.
The following sections contain comments on the inputs and key assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis and explain how DOE took
To calculate the prices faced by cooking products purchasers, DOE multiplied the manufacturing costs developed from the engineering analysis by the supply chain markups it developed (along with sales taxes).
To project future product prices, DOE examined the electric and gas cooking products Producer Price Index (PPI) for the period 1982-2013. This index, adjusted for inflation, shows a declining trend. The decline for gas cooking products is a little more significant than that for electric cooking products (see appendix 10-D of the NOPR TSD). Based on an exponential fit of the adjusted PPIs, DOE utilized a declining price trend for both electric and gas cooking products as the default case to project future product price.
Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. For this NOPR, DOE used data from the 2013 RS Means Mechanical Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate installation costs for conventional ovens.
In general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same for different efficiency levels.
Section IV.E describes the derivation of annual energy use for conventional ovens.
DOE did not find any evidence of a rebound effect, in which consumers use a more efficient appliance more intensively, for conventional ovens. Cooking practices are affected by people's eating habits, which are unlikely to change due to higher product efficiency. DOE requests comment on its decision to not use a rebound effect for cooking products (see issue 11 in section VII.E).
DOE derived marginal residential electricity and natural gas prices for 27 geographic areas.
DOE estimated residential electricity prices for each of the 27 areas based on 2013 data from EIA Form 861, Annual Electric Power Industry Report.
DOE estimated marginal residential natural gas prices in each of the 27 geographic areas based on 2013 data from the EIA publication Natural Gas Monthly publication.
To estimate future trends in electricity and natural gas prices, DOE used price forecasts in
Laclede and the American Gas Association (AGA) suggest that DOE use consumer marginal energy rates when evaluating the LCC for each standard efficiency level. They noted that this approach was recommended by DOE's Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in April 1998. AGA notes that a marginal price analysis reflects incremental changes in natural gas costs most closely associated with changes in the amount of gas consumed. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 4 and AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2) DOE developed estimates of marginal electricity and natural gas prices for the NOPR analysis.
The spreadsheet tool used to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis allows users to select the
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the appliance. Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment.
Typically, small incremental changes in product efficiency incur no, or only very small, changes in repair and maintenance costs over baseline products. For all electric cooking products, DOE did not include any changes in repair and maintenance costs for products more efficient than baseline products.
For gas ovens, DOE determined the repair and maintenance costs associated with different types of ignition systems. Following the approach adopted in the April 2009 Final Rule for electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition systems, DOE estimated an average repair cost of $170 occurring every fifth year during the product's lifetime. For electronic spark ignition systems, DOE estimated an average repair cost of $206 occurring in the tenth year of the product's life. DOE seeks comments from the industry on repair cost estimation (see section VII.E).
See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further information regarding repair and maintenance costs.
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired from service. DOE used a variety of sources to establish low, average, and high estimates for product lifetime. Utilizing data from Appliance Magazine Market Insight, DOE established average product lifetimes of 15 years for conventional electric ovens and 17 years for conventional gas ovens.
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households to estimate the present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for conventional cooking products based on consumer financing costs and opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and maintenance costs.
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE's approach involved identifying all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and maintenance costs. DOE estimated the average percentage shares of the various
The compliance date is the date when a covered product is required to meet a new or amended standard. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all customers as if each were to purchase new equipment in the year that compliance with amended standards is required. EPCA, as amended, requires that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE's last final rule for conventional cooking products was issued on March 31, 2009. Thus, DOE must act by March 31, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(b). Any amended standards would apply to conventional cooking products manufactured three years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE assumed that a final rule would be published in 2016, which results in 2019 being the first year of compliance with amended standards.
To accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that would be affected by a particular standard level, DOE estimates the distribution of equipment efficiencies that consumers are expected to purchase under the base case (
DOE did not have market data reflecting the efficiency distribution of cooking products being sold. DOE's Compliance Certification Database provides information on models of gas cooking products that comply with the requirement of not having a standing pilot. In the absence of data on the efficiency distribution of the products being sold in the market, DOE calculated the market share of available efficiency options based on consumer's sensitivity to first cost. DOE treated renters and owners as two separate entities to establish price sensitivities, and used a logit model to characterize historical shipments as a function of price. DOE used shipments data collected by the Market Research Magazine and the PPI for household cooking appliance manufacturers between the years 2002-2012, along with the manufacturer cost data from the engineering analysis to analyze factors that influence consumer purchasing decisions of cooking products. Because the data are not sufficient to capture any definite trend in efficiency, DOE used the 2013 distribution (described in Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD) to represent the market in the compliance year (2019).
Table IV-22 and present market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for conventional ovens.
The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more efficient equipment, compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the product to the customer for each efficiency level and the annual first year operating expenditures for each efficiency level. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that energy price trends and discount rates are not needed.
EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the test procedure
DOE uses projections of product shipments to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for each product. Historical shipments data are used to build up an equipment stock and also to calibrate the shipments model. DOE accounted for three market segments: (1) New construction, (2) existing homes (
DOE considered the impacts of prospective standards on product shipments. The combined market of conventional electric and gas cooking products is completely saturated. Thus, DOE concluded that any price increase due to a standard would not impact the overall decision to purchase. However, DOE did implement an impact due to a standard on the efficiency of the product that will likely be purchased. This impact is captured through a change in the efficiency distribution of the market.
Table IV-24 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the inputs to the shipments analysis for the NOPR.
To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of new housing coupled with product market saturation data for new housing. For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE adopted the projections from EIA's AEO 2015 through 2040.
DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions developed from product lifetimes. For this NOPR, DOE used retirement functions based on Weibull distributions.
To reconcile the historical shipments with the model, DOE assumed that every retired unit is not replaced. DOE attributed the reason for this non-replacement to building demolition occurring at the rate of approximately three percent of the retiring units per annum over the period 2013-2048. The assumed not-replaced rate is distributed into 2.8 percent for electric cooking products and 4.1 percent for gas cooking products.
DOE allocated shipments to each of the eight product classes based on the current market share of each class. DOE developed the market shares based on historical data collected from Appliance Magazine Market Research report
AGA voiced concern that the establishment of energy conservation standards for natural gas cooking appliances may result in increased first-cost of these appliances, making them less attractive and leading to potential fuel switching. (AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2) Because this NOPR considers standards for both electric and natural gas appliances, any increase in the price of the appliance would impact cooking products of both fuel types. As switching typically includes additional installation costs for accessing the new fuel source (
For further details on the shipments analysis, please refer to chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.
The NIA assesses the national energy savings and the national NPV of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the national energy savings and the consumer costs and savings from each TSL.
DOE evaluated the impacts of proposed standards for conventional ovens by comparing base-case projections with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize energy use and customer costs for each product class in the
Table IV-25 summarizes the key inputs for the NIA. The sections following provide further details, as does chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
A key component of DOE's estimates of national energy savings and NPV is the energy efficiencies forecasted over time. For the base case, in the absence of any historical efficiency data, and absence of an ENERGY STAR program for conventional cooking products, DOE assumed that efficiency would follow the distribution based on consumer choice model. The model responds to changes in product prices, and therefore, is affected by the learning effect on the prices.
To estimate the impact that standards would have in the year compliance becomes required, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario, which assumes that equipment efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level and equipment shipments at efficiencies above the standard level under consideration are not affected. In each standards case, the efficiency distributions remain constant at the 2019 levels for the remainder of the shipments forecast period.
For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national energy savings for each standard level by multiplying the shipments of ovens by the per-unit annual energy savings. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual energy savings over the lifetime of all equipment shipped during 2019-2048.
The annual energy consumption per unit depends directly on equipment efficiency. DOE used the shipment-weighted energy efficiencies associated with the base case and each standards case, in combination with the annual energy use data, to estimate the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit energy consumption under the base case and standards cases. The national energy consumption is the product of the annual energy consumption per unit and the number of units of each vintage, which depends on shipments. DOE calculates the total annual site energy savings for a given standards case by subtracting total energy use in the standards case from total energy use in the base case. Note that total shipments are the same in the standards cases as in the base case.
DOE converted the site electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (power sector energy consumption) using annual conversion factors derived from the
The American Public Gas Association (APGA), National Propane Gas Association (NGPA), AGA, and Laclede recommend that DOE incorporate full fuel cycle analysis in the conservation standard. (APGA, STD No. 6 at p. 2, NPGA, STD No. 5 at pp. 1-3, AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2, and Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 3) In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Science, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use, GHG emissions and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates the lifetime net savings for equipment shipped each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in total savings in lifetime operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates lifetime operating cost savings over the life of each considered oven unit in conventional cooking products shipped during the forecast period.
The total installed cost includes both the equipment price and the installation cost. For each product class, DOE calculated equipment prices by efficiency level using manufacturer selling prices and weighted-average overall markup values. Because DOE calculated the total installed cost as a function of equipment efficiency, it was able to determine annual total installed costs based on the annual shipment-weighted efficiency levels determined in the shipments model. DOE accounted for the repair and maintenance costs associated with the ignition systems in gas cooking products.
As noted in section IV.F.1, DOE assumed a declining trend in the conventional cooking products prices
The per-unit energy savings were derived as described in section IV.H.2. To calculate future electricity and natural gas prices, DOE applied the projected trend in national-average commercial electricity and natural gas price from the
In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that used the energy price projections in the
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net dollar savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. DOE estimates the NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate in accordance with guidance provided by the OMB to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on individual consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard level. For this NOPR, DOE used RECS 2009 data to analyze the potential effect of standards for residential cooking products on two consumer subgroups: (1) Households with low income levels, and (2) households comprised of seniors.
More details on the consumer subgroup analysis can be found in chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying this notice.
DOE conducted an MIA for residential conventional ovens to estimate the financial impact of new and amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of these products. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an industry cash-flow model customized for residential conventional ovens covered in this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on the industry cost structure, equipment costs, shipments, and assumptions about manufacturer markups and conversion costs. The key MIA output is INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard accounting principles and to compare changes in INPV between a base case and various TSLs in the standards case. The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases represents the financial impact of new and amended energy conservation standards on residential conventional oven manufacturers. Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) produce different INPV results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as manufacturing capacity; characteristics of, and impacts on, any particular subgroup of manufacturers; and impacts on competition.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In the first phase DOE prepared an industry characterization based on the market and technology assessment and publicly available information. In the second phase, DOE developed an interview guide based on the industry financial parameters derived in the first phase. In the third phase, DOE conducted interviews with a variety of residential conventional cooking product manufacturers that account for more than 85 percent of domestic residential conventional oven sales covered by this rulemaking. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics specific to each company and obtained each manufacturer's view of the residential conventional oven industry as a whole. The interviews provided information that DOE used to evaluate the impacts of new and amended standards on manufacturers' cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and direct domestic manufacturing employment levels. Section V.B.2 of this NOPR contains a discussion on the estimated changes in the number of domestic employees involved in manufacturing residential conventional ovens covered by the proposed standards. Section IV.J.4 of this NOPR contains a description of the key issues manufacturers raised during the interviews.
During the third phase, DOE also used the results of the industry characterization analysis in the first phase and feedback from manufacturer interviews to group together manufacturers that exhibit similar production and cost structure characteristics. DOE identified one manufacturer subgroup for a separate impact analysis—small business manufacturers—using the small business employee threshold of 750 total employees published by the Small Business Administration (SBA). This threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company and any other subsidiaries. Based on this classification, DOE identified seven residential conventional oven manufacturers that qualify as small businesses. The manufacturer subgroup analysis is discussed in greater detail in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD and in section VI.B of this notice.
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time due to new and amended energy conservation standards. These changes in cash flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the standards case compared to the base case (the case where a standard is not set). The GRIM analysis uses a standard annual cash flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. It then models changes in costs, investments, and manufacturer margins that result from new and amended standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to calculate a series of annual cash flows beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2015, and continuing to 2048. DOE computes INPV by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during the analysis period. DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent for residential conventional cooking product manufacturers. The discount rate estimates were derived from
DOE expects new and amended energy conservation standards for residential conventional ovens to cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance with the new and amended standards. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) Capital conversion costs, and (2) product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, certification, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with new and amended standards.
Using feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE conducted a top-down analysis to calculate the capital and product conversion costs for residential conventional oven manufacturers. DOE asked manufacturers during interviews to estimate the total capital and product conversion costs they would need to incur to be able to produce each residential conventional oven at specific ELs. DOE then summed these values provided by manufacturers to arrive at total top-down industry conversion cost for residential conventional ovens.
See chapter 12 of this NOPR TSD for a complete description of DOE's assumptions for the capital and product conversion costs.
Manufacturing more efficient residential conventional ovens is typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to the need for more costly materials and components. The higher MPCs for these more efficient products can affect the revenue, gross margin, and the cash flows of residential conventional oven manufacturers. DOE developed MPCs for each representative unit at each EL analyzed. DOE purchased a number of units for each product class, then tested and tore down those units to create a unique bill of materials for the purchased unit. Using the bill of materials for each residential conventional oven, DOE was able to create an aggregated MPC based on the material costs from the bill of materials, the labor costs based on an average labor rate and the labor hours necessary to manufacture the residential conventional oven, and the overhead costs, including depreciation, based on a markup applied to the material and labor costs based on the materials used. For more information about MPCs, see section IV.C of this NOPR.
INPV, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, which depends on the quantity and prices of residential conventional ovens shipped in each year of the analysis period. Industry revenue calculations require forecasts of: (1) The total annual shipment volume of residential conventional ovens; (2) the distribution of shipments across product classes (because prices vary by product class); and (3) the distribution of shipments across efficiency levels (because prices vary with efficiency level).
In the base case shipment analysis, DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for each product. In the standards case, DOE modeled a roll-up scenario. The roll-up scenario represents the case in which all shipments in the base case do not meet the new and amended standards shift to now meet the new and amended standard level but do not exceed the new and amended standard. Also, no shipments that meet or exceed the new and amended standards have an increase in efficiency due to the new and amended standards.
For a complete description of the shipments used in the base and standards case see the shipments analysis discussion in section IV.G of this NOPR.
As discussed in the previous manufacturer production costs section, the MPCs for each of the product classes of residential conventional ovens are the manufacturers' factory costs for those units. These costs include materials, direct labor, depreciation, and overhead, which are collectively referred to as the cost of goods sold (COGS). The MSP is the price received by residential conventional oven manufacturers from their customers, typically retail outlets, regardless of the downstream distribution channel through which the residential conventional ovens are ultimately sold. The MSP is not the cost the end-user pays for residential conventional ovens because there are typically multiple sales along the distribution chain and various markups applied to each sale. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer markup. The manufacturer markup covers all the residential conventional oven manufacturer's non-production costs (
Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards case yields a different set of impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers than in the base case. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards case markup scenarios for residential conventional ovens to represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for residential conventional oven manufacturers following the implementation of new energy conservation standards. The two scenarios are: (1) A preservation of gross margin markup scenario, and (2) a preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Each scenario leads to different manufacturer markup values, which, when applied to the inputted MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers.
The preservation of gross margin markup scenario assumes that the COGS for each residential conventional oven is marked up by a flat percentage to cover SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest expenses, and profit. This allows manufacturers to preserve the same gross margin percentage in the standards case as in the base case throughout the entire analysis period. This markup scenario represents the upper bound of the residential conventional oven industry profitability in the standards case because residential conventional oven manufacturers are able to fully pass through additional costs due to standards to their consumers.
To derive the preservation of gross margin markup percentages for residential conventional ovens, DOE examined the SEC 10-Ks of all publicly
DOE included an alternative markup scenario, the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, because manufacturers stated they do not expect to be able to markup the full cost of production in the standards case, given the highly competitive residential conventional oven market. The preservation of operating profit markup scenario assumes that manufacturers are able to maintain only the base case total operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case, despite higher production costs and investment. The base case total operating profit is derived from marking up the COGS for each product by the preservation of gross margin markup previously described. In the standards case for the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, DOE adjusted the residential conventional oven manufacturer markups in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the year after the compliance date of the new and amended standards as in the base case. Under this scenario, while manufacturers are not able to earn additional operating profit on higher per unit production costs and the increase in capital and product investments that are required to comply with new and amended energy conservation standards, they are able to maintain the same operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case that was earned in the base case.
The preservation of operating profit markup scenario represents the lower bound of industry profitability in the standards case. This is because manufacturers are not able to fully pass through the additional costs necessitated by new and amended energy conservation standards, as they are able to do in the preservation of gross margin markup scenario. Therefore, manufacturers earn less revenue in the preservation of operating profit markup scenario than they do in the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
The February 2014 RFI did not focus on the MIA or specifically address any issues relating to the MIA. Therefore, DOE did not receive any MIA specific comments from the February 2014 RFI.
DOE conducted manufacturer interviews following publication of the February 2014 RFI in preparation for the NOPR analysis. In these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns with this residential conventional ovens rulemaking. The following section describes the key issues identified by residential conventional oven manufacturers during these interviews.
Manufacturers stated that their premium products are usually less efficient than their baseline products. For example, premium ovens typically have bigger cavities with hidden heat sources under the floor of the cavity. This makes the heat source less direct, therefore decreasing the efficiency. On the other hand, baseline ovens tend to use direct heating sources which are more efficient. Manufacturers warned DOE that focusing only on the efficiency of residential conventional ovens could cause some manufacturers to redesign their products in a way that reduces consumer satisfaction as consumers tend to value premium features.
Manufacturers stated that energy efficiency is not one of the most important aspects that consumers value when purchasing residential conventional ovens. Manufacturers state that there are several other factors, such as performance and durability, which consumers value more when purchasing residential conventional ovens. Forcing manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their products could lead to some manufacturers removing premium features that consumers desire from their products, reducing overall consumer utility.
Several manufacturers expressed concern about the testing and recertification costs associated with new and amended energy conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. Because testing and certification costs are incurred on a per model basis, if a large number of models are required to be redesigned to meet new and amended standards, manufacturers would be forced to spend a significant amount of money testing and certifying products that were redesigned due to new and amended standards. Manufacturers stated that these testing and certification costs associated with residential conventional ovens could significantly strain their limited resources if these costs were all incurred in the three year time frame from the publication of a final rule to the implementation of the standards.
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
The analysis of power sector emissions uses marginal emissions factors calculated using a methodology based on results published for the
Combustion emissions of CH
For CH
Because the on-site operation of gas cooking products requires use of fossil fuels and results in emissions of CO
EIA prepares the
SO
Because
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Beginning in 2016, however, SO
CAIR established a cap on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
As part of the development of this rule, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
DOE is relying on a set of values for the SCC that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for these values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended
Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing CO
As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A report from the National Research Council points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information about: (1) Future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages.
Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The agency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO
After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers' best estimates and judgments.
In 2010, the interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses.
The SCC values used were generated using the most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
AHAM suggested that DOE rely on the 2010 estimates for SCC until it has resolved all comments on the derivation of the SCC estimates from the 2013 report. (AHAM, STD No. 9, at p. 8) The 2013 report provides an update of the SCC estimates based solely on the latest peer-reviewed version of the models, replacing model versions that were developed up to ten years ago in a rapidly evolving field. It does not revisit other assumptions with regard to the discount rate, reference case socio-economic and emission scenarios, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. Improvements in the way damages are modeled are confined to those that have been incorporated into the latest versions of the models by the developers themselves in the peer-reviewed literature. Given the above, using the 2010 estimates would be inconsistent with DOE's objective of using the best available information in its analyses.
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of analytical challenges that are being addressed by the research community, including research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
DOE multiplied the CO
DOE acknowledges the limitations of the SCC estimates, which are discussed in detail in the 2010 interagency group report. Specifically, uncertainties in the assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, as well as other model inputs such as economic growth and emissions trajectories, are discussed and the reasons for the specific input assumptions chosen are explained. However, the three integrated assessment models used to estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the IPCC. In addition, new versions of the models that were used in 2013 to estimate revised SCC values were published in the peer-reviewed literature (see appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD for discussion). Although uncertainties remain, the revised estimates that were issued in November, 2013 are based on the best available scientific information on the impacts of climate change. The current estimates of the SCC have been developed over many years, using the best science available, and with input from the public. In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for public comment on the interagency technical support document underlying the revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586 (Nov. 26, 2013). OMB is reviewing comments and considering whether further revisions to the SCC estimates are warranted. DOE stands ready to work with OMB and the other members of the interagency working group on further review and revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.
In addition, it is important to note that the monetized benefits of carbon emission reductions are one factor that DOE considers in its evaluation of the economic justification of proposed standards. As shown in Table I.4, the benefits of these standards in terms of consumer operating cost savings exceed the incremental costs of the standards-compliant products. The benefits of CO
As noted above, DOE has taken into account how amended energy conservation standards would reduce site NO
DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided SO
The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, DOE analyzes the changes in installed electricity capacity and generation that would result for each TSL. The utility impact analysis is based on published output from the NEMS associated with
Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the equipment subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more efficient equipment. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of new equipment; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to potential energy conservation standards for conventional ovens. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE and the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for conventional ovens. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting this notice.
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for conventional ovens. These TSLs were developed using combinations of efficiency levels for the product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents the results for those TSLs in this proposed rule. The results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
Table V-1. and Table V-2. presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels for conventional ovens.
Additionally, Table V-3 to Table V-6 illustrate the design and performance related changes that are assumed for each TSL for each product class.
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on conventional oven consumers by looking at the effects potential amended standards would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed below.
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two ways: (1) Purchase price increases, and (2) operating costs decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (
Table V-7 through Table V-22 show the LCC and PBP results for all efficiency levels considered for each conventional oven product class. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second table, the LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution in the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this notice).
As described in section IV.I of this notice, DOE determined the impact of the considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households. Table V-23 through Table V-30 compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the two consumer subgroups, along with the average LCC savings for the entire sample. In most cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households and senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.
As discussed above, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for conventional cooking products. As a result, DOE calculated a single rebuttable presumption payback value,
Table V-31 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the considered TSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for this rulemaking are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification).
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential conventional ovens. The following sections describe the expected impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of this NOPR TSD explains the MIA in further detail.
Table V-32 through Table V-33 depict the financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of new and amended energy conservation standards on residential conventional oven manufacturers as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the residential conventional oven industry, DOE modeled two markup scenarios that correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new and amended standards. Each markup scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL.
In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case and the standards case that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base year (2015) through the end of the analysis period. The results also discuss the difference in cash flows between the base case and the standards case in the year before the compliance date for new and amended energy conservation standards. This figure represents the size of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the residential conventional oven industry in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards. In the engineering analysis, DOE enumerates common technology options that achieve the efficiencies for each of the product classes. For descriptions of these technology options and the required efficiencies at each TSL, see section IV.C and section V.A respectively of this NOPR.
To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin markup scenario. This scenario assumes that in the standards case, manufacturers would be able to pass along all the higher production costs required for more efficient products to their consumers. Specifically, the industry would be able to maintain its average base case gross margin (as a percentage of revenue) despite the higher product costs in the standards case. In general, the larger the product price increases, the less likely manufacturers are to achieve the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario because it is less likely that manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these larger cost increases.
To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential impacts on the residential conventional oven manufacturers, DOE modeled the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. This scenario represents the lower end of the range of potential impacts on manufacturers because no additional operating profit is earned on the higher product costs, eroding profit margins as a percentage of total revenue.
Table V-32 and Table V-33 present the projected results for residential conventional ovens under the preservation of gross margin and preservation of operating profit markup scenarios. DOE examined results for all product classes together since most manufacturers produce both gas and electric ovens.
TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at baseline for two product classes (gas standard ovens, free-standing; and gas standard ovens, built-in/slide-in), and EL 1 for six product classes (electric standard ovens, free-standing; electric standard ovens, built-in/slide-in; electric self-clean ovens, free-standing; electric self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in; gas self-clean ovens, free-standing; and gas self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in). At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV range from −$21.4 million to −$20.7 million, or a change in INPV of −2.7 percent to −2.6 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) is estimated to decrease to $52.1 million, or a drop of 14.3 percent, compared to the base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018, the year leading up to new and amended energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL. DOE projects that in the expected year of compliance (2019), 100 percent of gas standard oven, free-standing shipments; and gas standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1. Meanwhile in 2019, 60 percent of electric standard oven, free-standing shipments; 60 percent of electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 53 percent of electric self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; 53 electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 52 percent of gas self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; and 52 percent of gas self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet the efficiency levels at TSL 1.
DOE expects conversion costs to be small at TSL 1 because the design changes prescribed at this TSL only affect standby mode power consumption and do not apply to active mode power consumption. DOE expects residential conventional oven manufacturers to incur $4.3 million in product conversion costs for product redesigns that will convert residential conventional ovens from using linear power supply to switch mode power supply to reduce standby power consumption. DOE expects $9.0 million in capital conversion costs for manufacturers to upgrade production lines and retool equipment associated with achieving this reduction in standby power.
At TSL 1, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the shipment-weighted average MPC increases very slightly by approximately 0.1 percent relative to the base-case MPC. This extremely slight price increase is outweighed by the $13.3 million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, manufacturers earn the same nominal operating profit as would be earned in the base case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments. The very slight increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC is again outweighed by a slightly lower average manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 1.20 manufacturer markup used in the base case) and $13.3 million in conversion costs, resulting in slightly negative impacts at TSL 1.
TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at EL 1 for two product classes (electric self-clean ovens, free-standing; and electric self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 2 for two product classes (gas self-clean ovens, free-standing; and gas self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 3 for two product classes (electric standard ovens, free-standing and electric standard ovens, built-in/slide-in); and EL 4 for two product classes (gas standard ovens, free-standing and gas standard ovens, built-in/slide-in). At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from −$86.4 million to −$80.9 million, or a change in INPV of −11.0 percent to −10.3 percent. At this standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $17.6, or a drop of 71.0 percent, compared to the base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018.
Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 2. While the $109.9 million in industry conversion costs represent a significant investment for manufacturers, DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL since the base case INPV for manufacturers is slightly less than $800 million. DOE projects that in 2019, 40 percent of electric standard oven, free-standing shipments; 40 percent of electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 53 percent of electric self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; 53 percent of electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 32 percent of gas standard oven, free-standing shipments; 32 percent of gas standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 39 percent of gas
While DOE expects conversion costs to be a large investment at TSL 2, the much larger base case INPV reduces the overall INPV impact on a percentage basis at TSL 2. DOE expects that product conversion costs will significantly rise from $4.3 million at TSL 1 to $67.9 million at TSL 2 for extensive product redesigns and testing. Capital conversion costs will also significantly increase from $9.0 million at TSL 1 to $42.0 million at TSL 2 to upgrade production equipment to accommodate for added or redesigned features in each product class. The large conversion costs at TSL 2 are driven by reduce vent rate and improve insulation in the electric oven product classes, and conversion from glo-bar to electronic spark ignition systems in the gas oven product classes.
At TSL 2, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the shipment weighted-average MPC only slightly increases by 0.9 percent, relative to the base-case MPC. In this scenario, INPV impacts are moderately negative because manufacturers incur sizable conversion costs ($109.9 million) and are not able to recover much of those conversion costs through the slight increase in the shipment weighted-average MPC at TSL 2.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 0.9 percent shipment weighted-average MPC increase is outweighed by a slightly lower average manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 1.20 manufacturer markup used in the base case) and $109.9 million in conversion costs, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 2.
TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at max tech for all product classes. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from −$727.5 million to −$642.9 million, or a change in INPV of −92.9 percent to −82.0 percent. At this standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 635.3 percent to −$325.5 million, compared to the base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018.
At TSL 3 conversion costs significantly increase causing free cash flow to become significantly negative in the year leading up to energy conservation standards and cause manufacturers to loss a substantial amount of INPV. Also, the percent change in INPV at TSL 3 is significantly negative due to the extremely large conversion costs. Manufacturers at this TSL would have a very difficult time in the short term to make the necessary investments to comply with new and amended energy conservation standards prior to when standards went into effect. Also, the long-term profitability of residential conventional oven manufacturers could be seriously jeopardized as some manufacturers would struggle to comply with standards at this TSL.
A high percentage of total shipments will need to be redesigned to meet efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects that in 2019, only 7 percent of electric standard oven, free-standing shipments; 7 percent of electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 12 percent of electric self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; 12 percent of electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 8 percent of gas standard oven, free-standing shipments; 8 percent of gas standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 13 percent of gas self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; and 13 percent of gas self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet the efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3.
DOE expects significant conversion costs at TSL 3, which represents max tech. DOE expects product conversion costs to significantly increase from $67.9 million at TSL 2 to $401.5 million at TSL 3. Large increases in product conversion are due to the vast majority of shipments needing extensive redesign as well as a significant increase in testing and recertification for redesigned products. DOE estimates that capital conversion costs will also significantly increase from $42.0 million at TSL 2 to $528.0 million at TSL 3. Capital conversion costs are driven by investments in production equipment to accommodate for forced convection and reduced conduction losses in the electric and gas oven product classes.
At TSL 3, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the shipment weighted-average MPC increases by 12.7 percent relative to the base-case MPC. In this scenario, INPV impacts are significantly negative because the $929.5 million in conversion costs significantly outweighs the modest increase in shipment weighted-average MPC.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 12.7 percent MPC increase is again significantly outweighed by a lower average manufacturer markup of 1.19 (compared to 1.20 used in the base case) and $929.5 million in conversion costs, resulting in significantly negative impacts at TSL 3.
DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of new and amended energy conservation standards on direct employment. DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2019 to 2048. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, and interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures involved with the manufacturing of the products are a function of the labor intensity of the products, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time.
In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of the MPCs to estimate the annual labor expenditures in the industry. DOE used census data and interviews with manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total labor expenditures that is attributable to domestic labor.
The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers up to the line-supervisor level directly involved in fabricating and assembling a product within a manufacturing facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as material handing with a forklift, are also included as production labor. DOE's estimates account for production workers who manufacture only the specific products covered in this rulemaking.
The employment impacts shown in Table V-34 represent the potential production employment that could result following new and amended energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the results estimates the maximum change in the number of production workers that could occur after compliance with new and amended energy conservation standards when assuming that manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of covered products in the same production facilities. It also assumes that domestic production does not shift to lower labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers evaluating sourcing decisions in response to new and amended energy conservation standards, the lower bound of the employment results includes the estimated total number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their jobs if some or all
Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE estimates that approximately 60 percent of the residential conventional ovens sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards, there would be approximately 6,564 domestic production workers involved in manufacturing residential conventional ovens in 2019. Table V-34 shows the range of the impacts of new and amended energy conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the residential conventional oven industry.
At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show a slight increase in the number of domestic employment for residential conventional ovens. DOE believes that manufacturers would increase production hiring due to the increase in the labor associated with adding the required components to make residential conventional ovens more efficient. However, as previously stated, this assumes that in addition to hiring more production employees, all existing domestic production would remain in the United States and not shift to lower labor-cost countries.
DOE does not expect any significant changes in domestic employment at TSL 1 because standards would only affect standby mode power consumption at this TSL. Most manufacturers stated that this TSL would not require significant design changes and therefore would not have a significant impact on domestic employment decisions.
At TSLs 2 and 3, all product classes would require higher efficiency standards and therefore most manufacturers would be required to make modifications to their existing production lines. However, manufacturers stated that due to the larger size of most residential conventional ovens very few units are shipped from far distances such as Asia or Europe. The vast majority of residential conventional ovens are currently made in North America. Some manufacturers stated that even significant changes to production line would not cause them to shift their production to lower labor-cost countries, as several manufacturers either only produce residential conventional ovens domestically or have recently made significant investments to continue to produce a portion of their residential conventional ovens domestically. DOE estimates that at most 25 percent of the domestic labor for residential conventional ovens could move to other countries in response to the standards proposed at TSL 2. However, DOE believes this to be a high upper bound estimate as most manufacturers would not significantly alter their production locations at the efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 2.
At TSL 3, manufacturers could alter production locations in response to standards since all product classes would be required to meet max tech. DOE estimated that at most 50 percent of the domestic labor for residential conventional ovens could move to other countries in response to the standards prescribed at TSL 3.
DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to residential conventional oven manufacturers at the proposed efficiency levels.
Residential conventional oven manufacturers stated that they did not anticipate any capacity constraints for the efficiency levels analyzed for either electric or gas residential conventional ovens.
DOE requests comment on any potential manufacturer capacity constraints caused by the proposed standards in this NOPR, TSL 2.
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures substantially different from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small businesses in section VI.B and did not identify any other adversely impacted subgroups for residential conventional ovens for this rulemaking based on the results of the industry characterization.
DOE requests comment on manufacturer subgroups that DOE should analyze and/or types of residential conventional oven manufacturers for the subgroup analysis.
While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts a cumulative regulatory burden analysis as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
DOE acknowledges that most residential conventional oven manufacturers also make appliances that are or could be subject to future
The compliance years and expected industry conversion costs of relevant amended energy conservation standards are indicated in Table V-35.
DOE discusses these and other requirements and includes the full details of the cumulative regulatory burden analysis in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other regulations residential conventional oven manufacturers must make, especially if compliance with those regulations is required three years before or after the estimated compliance date of this proposed standard (2019).
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards for conventional ovens, DOE compared the energy consumption of those products under the base case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. Table V-36 and Table V-37 present DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for conventional ovens. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.1 of this notice.
OMB Circular A-4
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from particular standard levels for conventional ovens. In accordance with the OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 2003),
Table V-39. shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for conventional ovens. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2019-2048.
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V-40. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2019-2027. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.
The above results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price for conventional ovens over the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of this notice). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the high price decline case, the NPV is higher than in the default case. In the low price decline case, the NPV is lower than in the default case.
DOE expects energy conservation standards for conventional ovens to reduce energy bills for consumers of those products, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this notice, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards are likely to have negligible
Based on testing conducted in support of this proposed rule, discussed in section IV.C.2 of this notice, DOE concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would not reduce the utility or performance of the conventional ovens under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards.
DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the proposed standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination to DOE, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
DOE will transmit a copy of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed with the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE will also publish and respond to DOJ's comments in the
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated reduction in generating capacity for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy savings from proposed standards for conventional ovens are expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V-41. provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
As part of the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
Table V-42. presents the global value of CO
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking.
Table V-44. presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO
Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) DOE did not consider any other factors for this NOPR.
When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The Department considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with a maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial standard level, tables present a summary of the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1 of this notice presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways: First, if consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.
Table V-45. and Table V-46. summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for conventional ovens. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this notice.
DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save 1.25 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 3 has an estimated NPV of consumer benefit of 1.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 6.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 72.6 Mt of CO
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings ranging from −$37.64 for PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In) to $178.92 for product class 6 (Gas Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in). The simple payback period ranges from 5 years for PC5, PC6, PC7, and PC8 (Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In, and Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 18 years for PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4 (Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In and Free-Standing and Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In and Free-Standing). The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC net cost ranges from 24 percent for PC5 and PC6 (Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 82 percent for PC1 and PC2 (Electric Standard Oven, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In).
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $727.5 million to a decrease of $642.9 million, equivalent to a loss of 92.9 percent and a loss of 82.0 percent, respectively.
Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL are forecast to represent 11 percent of shipments in the year leading up to new and amended standards. As such, manufacturers would have to redesign the vast majority of their products by the 2019 compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning all these units to meet the current max-tech efficiency levels would require considerable capital and equipment conversion expenditures. At TSL 3, the capital conversion costs total $528.0 million, 4.3 times the industry annual capital expenditure in the year leading up to new and amended standards. DOE estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry $401.5 million in product conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the research programs required to develop new products that meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 3. These costs are equivalent to 4.5 times the industry annual budget for research and development. Total capital and product conversion costs associated with the changes in products and manufacturing facilities required at TSL 3 would require significant use of manufacturers' financial reserves, impacting other areas of business that compete for these resources, and significantly reducing INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 3. Because manufacturers are more likely to reduce their margins to maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 92.9 percent in INPV to residential conventional oven manufacturers. As a result, at TSL 3, DOE expects that some companies could be forced to exit the residential conventional oven market or shift production abroad, both of which would negatively impact domestic manufacturing capacity and employment.
In view of the foregoing, DOE concludes that, at TSL 3 for conventional ovens, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of total customer benefits, customer LCC savings for four of the eight product classes, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative customer impacts for product classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In and Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In), the significant reduction in industry value at TSL 3, as well as the potential for loss of domestic manufacturing. Consequently, DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.71 quads of energy, an
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 41.1 Mt of CO
At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings ranging from $14.10 for PC3 (Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing) to $289.77 for PC6 (Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-in). The simple payback period ranges from 1 year for PC3, PC4, PC7, and PC8 (Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In and Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 4 years for PC1 and PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In). The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC net cost ranges from zero percent for PC3 through PC8 (Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In, Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In, and Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 12 percent for PC1 and PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In).
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.4 million to a decrease of $80.9 million, equivalent to a loss of 11.0 percent and a loss of 10.3 percent, respectively. Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL are forecast to represent 46 percent of shipments in the year leading up to new and amended standards. DOE estimates that compliance with TSL 2 would require manufacturers to make an estimated $42.0 million in capital conversion costs. This represents a 0.3 times increase in the annual capital expenditure budget in the year leading up to new and amended standards. TSL 2 will also require manufacturers to make an estimated $67.9 million in product conversion costs primarily relating to the research and development programs needed to improve upon existing platforms to meet the specified efficiency levels. This represents 0.8 times the industry budget for research and development in the year leading up to new and amended standards. The substantial reduction in conversion costs corresponding to compliance with TSL 2 greatly mitigates the operational risk and impact on INPV.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for residential conventional ovens, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO
After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, DOE has tentatively concluded that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 2 for conventional ovens. The proposed energy conservation standards for conventional ovens are shown in Table V-47.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of CO
Table V-48 shows the annualized values for conventional ovens under TSL 2, expressed in 2014$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The problems that the proposed standards address are as follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient products are not realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An example of such a case is when the products purchase decision is made by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy costs.
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of appliances that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to public health, environmental protection, and national security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global warming.
In addition, DOE has determined that this regulatory action is an “economically significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. DOE presented to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including a regulatory impact analysis (RIA), and has included these documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that the NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of residential conventional ovens, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
DOE reviewed the potential standard levels considered in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. To better assess the potential impacts of this rulemaking on small entities, DOE conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade association membership directories (
DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if they were aware of any additional small manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly available data and contacted various companies on its complete list of manufacturers, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products impacted by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated.
DOE identified 19 companies that either manufacture or sell residential conventional ovens that would be affected by this proposal. Of these 19 companies, DOE identified seven that met the SBA's definition of a small business.
DOE contacted identified businesses to invite them to take part in a
Three major manufacturers supply approximately 85 percent of the market for residential conventional ovens. DOE estimates that the remaining 15 percent of the market is served by a combination of small businesses and large businesses. None of the three major manufacturers of residential conventional ovens affected by this rulemaking is a small business.
In general, small manufacturers differ from large manufacturers in several ways that affect the extent to which a manufacturer may be impacted by proposed standards. Characteristics of small manufacturers typically include: Lower production volumes, fewer engineering resources, and less access to capital. Lower production volumes in particular may place small manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage relative to large manufacturers as they convert products and facilities to comply with new and amended standards. When producing at lower volumes, a small manufacturer's conversion costs must be spread over fewer units than a larger competitor's. Therefore, unless a small manufacturer can differentiate its products in order to earn a price premium, the small manufacturer may experience a disproportionate cost penalty as it spreads one-time conversion costs over fewer unit sales. Additionally, when producing at lower volumes, small manufacturers may lack the purchasing power of their larger competitors and may therefore face higher costs when sourcing components for more efficient products. Disadvantages tied to lower production volumes may be further exacerbated by the fact that small manufacturers often have more limited engineering resources than their larger competitors, thereby complicating the redesign effort required to comply with new and amended standards. Finally, small manufacturers often have less access to capital, which may be needed to cover the conversion costs associated with new and amended standards. Combined, these factors may entail a disproportionate burden on small manufacturers.
At TSL 1 DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $0.3 million and product conversion costs of $0.1 million for an average small manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $0.6 million and product conversion costs of $0.3 million.
At TSL 2, the level proposed here, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $1.3 million and product conversion costs of $4.1 million for an average small manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $2.7 million and product conversion costs of $3.3 million. Table VI-2 presents the estimated conversion costs as a percentage of annual revenue for an average small manufacturer relative to an average large manufacturer.
At TSL 3, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $16.5 million and product conversion costs of $19.2 million for an average small manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $34.4 million and product conversion costs of $22.2 million.
As the results for TSL 2 indicate, new and amended energy conservation standards could potentially impact small businesses disproportionately. Although estimated conversion costs at TSL 2 are higher for an average large manufacturer than an average small manufacturer, the relative impacts of conversion costs on large manufacturers will likely be offset by higher annual revenues. This is consistent with the dynamic previously described, whereby large manufacturers tend to have larger production and sales volumes over which to spread costs and may also enjoy a competitive advantage due to their size and ability to access capital that may not be available to small manufacturers. Since the proposed standards could cause competitive concerns for small manufacturers, DOE cannot certify that the proposed standards would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
DOE requests comments on the number of small businesses identified and on the impacts of new and amended energy conservation standards on small businesses.
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being proposed.
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE's new and amended standards. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at higher and lower efficiency levels, TSL 3 and TSL1, respectively. As discussed in section VI.B.2, compared to TSL 3, DOE estimates that the capital conversion costs and product conversion costs for an average small manufacturer at TSL 2 would be 92 and 79 percent lower, respectively. The substantial reduction in small manufacturer capital and product conversion costs corresponding to TSL 2 compared to TSL 3 greatly mitigates the operational risk and the impact of the standard on INPV.
While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a significant reduction in energy savings and NPV benefits to consumers, achieving 75 percent lower energy savings and 84 percent less NPV benefits to consumers compared to the
DOE believes that establishing standards at TSL 2 balances the benefits of the energy savings and the NPV benefits to consumers created at TSL 2 with the potential burdens placed on residential conventional oven manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt one of the other TSLs considered above, or the other policy alternatives detailed as part of the regulatory impacts analysis included in Chapter 17 of this NOPR TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. For example, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver of the applicable test procedure. (See 10 CFR 431.401.) Further, EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8,000,000 may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (t)). DOE estimates that two of the seven small manufacturers could potentially petition for a waiver based on their annual gross revenue not exceeding $8 million. Additionally, Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order to prevent “special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens” that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.
DOE continues to seek input from businesses that would be affected by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the development of any final rule (See section VII.E. that solicits specific data as well as input on the results of the analyses contained in this section VI.B.4).
Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking products. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
Although the proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule will likely result in a final rule that could require expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) Investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by conventional cooking product manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency conventional cooking products, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. This proposed rule would establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for the proposed rule.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed the NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the
Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to develop two distinct component standards under separate timetables, and whether issues of product design and development, consumer utility and more broadly, cumulative regulatory burden concerns would arise as a result of its proposal (see section III.A of this notice).
2. DOE requests comment on its decision to defer the consideration of adopting energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking tops is finalized. DOE invites data and information that will allow it to further conduct the analysis of cooking tops, particularly when using a water-heating method to evaluate energy consumption. (see section III.B of this notice).
3. DOE requests comment on the proposed product classes for residential conventional cooking products. DOE requests comment on establishing separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens. DOE also welcomes comment and data on the determination that conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates do not warrant establishing a separate product class. (see section IV.A.2 of this notice).
4. DOE seeks data that characterize the energy consumption of residential steam ovens currently available on the market and requests comment regarding whether a test procedure that accurately measures the energy of a steam cooking mode exists. DOE also seeks comment on the use of optimized burner and cavity design (and other options listed in Table IV-5) to meet the proposed efficiency levels discussed in section I.A.1.b (see section IV.A.3 of this notice).
5. DOE requests comment and data regarding additional design options or variants of the considered design options that can increase the range of considered efficiency improvements for conventional cooking products, including design options that may not yet be found in the market (see section IV.B.2 of this notice).
6. DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline and incremental efficiency levels. DOE specifically requests inputs and test data on the efficiency improvements associated with the design options identified at each incremental efficiency level that were determined based on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD or updated based on testing and reverse engineering analyses for this NOPR. DOE also seeks comment and data on the proposed slopes and intercepts used to characterize the relationship between IAEC and oven cavity volume for each
7. DOE requests input and data on the proposed incremental manufacturing production costs for each efficiency level analyzed that were determined based on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD adjusted to reflect changes in the PPI or costs determined based on testing and reverse engineering analyses conducted for this NOPR (see section IV.C.4 of this notice).
8. DOE seeks comment on the tentative determination that the proposed efficiency levels and design options would not impact the consumer utility of conventional ovens (see section IV.C.5 of this notice).
9. DOE requests comments on repair costs and frequency of repair incurred by gas standard and self-clean ovens with Glo-bar ignition and electronic spark ignition technologies. In this NOPR, DOE used data from 2008 provided by the industry (see section IV.E.5 of this notice for details).
10. DOE requests data that would allow for use of different price trend projections for electric and gas cooking products. (see section IV.H.3.b of this notice)
11. To estimate the impact on shipments of the price increase for the considered efficiency levels, DOE determined that the overall market will be inelastic to price changes and will not impact shipments. DOE welcomes stakeholder input on the effect of amended standards on impacts across products within the same fuel class and equipment. (see section IV.G of this notice).
12. DOE requests comment on the reasonableness of the approach DOE has used to consider the rebound effect with higher-efficiency cooking products. (see section IV.F.3 of this notice)
13. DOE requests comment on DOE's approach for estimating monetary benefits associated with emissions reductions. (see section IV.L of this notice).
14. DOE seeks comment on the proposed manufacturer markup of 1.20 for all residential conventional ovens (see section IV.J.2).
15. DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to residential conventional oven manufacturers at the proposed efficiency levels (see section V.B.2).
16. DOE requests comment on any potential manufacturer capacity constraints caused by the proposed standards in the NOPR, TSL 2 (see section V.B.2).
17. DOE requests comment on manufacturer subgroups that DOE should analyze and/or types of residential conventional oven manufacturers for the subgroup analysis (see section V.B.2).
18. DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other regulations residential conventional oven manufacturers must make, especially if compliance with those regulations is required three years before or after the estimated compliance date of this proposed standard (2019) (see section V.B.2).
19. DOE requests comments on the number of small businesses identified and on the impacts of new and amended energy conservation standards on small businesses (see section VI.B).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(j)
(1) Gas cooking products with an electrical supply cord manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light.
(2) Gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord manufactured on or after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light.
(3) Conventional ovens manufactured on or after [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE
(4) Microwave-only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 shall have an average standby power not more than 1.0 watt. Built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 shall have an average standby power not more than 2.2 watts.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set renewable fuel percentage standards every year. This action proposes annual percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that apply to all motor vehicle gasoline and diesel produced or imported in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. The EPA is establishing a cellulosic biofuel volume for all three years that is below the applicable volume specified in the Act, and is also proposing to rescind the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2011. Relying on statutory waiver authorities, the EPA is proposing to adjust the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for all three years. The 2015 and 2016 proposed standards are expected to spur further progress in overcoming current constraints in renewable fuel distribution infrastructure, which in turn is expected to lead to substantial growth over time in the production and use of higher-level ethanol blends and other qualifying renewable fuels. In this action, we are also proposing the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Finally, we are proposing compliance and attest reporting deadlines for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, as well as proposing regulatory amendments to clarify the scope of the existing algal biofuel pathway.
Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
Julia MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4131; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas. Potentially regulated categories include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program began in 2006 pursuant to the requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o) that were added through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The statutory requirements for the RFS program were subsequently modified through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), resulting in the publication of major revisions to the regulatory requirements on March 26, 2010.
The fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the Clean Air Act is clear: To increase the use of renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022. These fuels include corn starch ethanol, the predominant biofuel in use to date, but Congress envisioned the majority of growth over time to come from advanced biofuels as the non-advanced (conventional) volumes remain constant starting in 2015 while the advanced volumes continue to grow. Advanced biofuels are required to have lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a lifecycle basis than conventional biofuels. Increased use of renewable fuels means less use of fossil fuels, which results in lower GHG emissions over time as advanced biofuel production and use becomes more commonplace. By aiming to diversify the country's fuel supply, Congress also intended to increase the nation's energy security. Renewable fuels represent an opportunity for the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels towards a set of lower GHG transportation fuels, and a chance for a still-developing low GHG technology sector to grow.
The law establishes annual volume targets,
And so the challenge EPA faces in developing this proposal is increasing renewable fuels over time to address climate change and increase energy security while also accounting for the
We believe that the RFS program can drive renewable fuel use, and that it is appropriate to consider the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set when we assess the amount of renewable fuel consumption that can be achieved. While we are proposing to use the tools Congress provided to make adjustments to the law's volume targets in recognition of the constraints that exist today, we are proposing standards for 2015 and 2016 that will drive growth in renewable fuels, particularly those fuels that are required to achieve the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions. We believe that over time use of both higher ethanol blends and non-ethanol biofuels can and will increase, consistent with Congress' intent in enacting EPAct and EISA. In our view, while Congress recognized that supply challenges may exist as evidenced by the various waiver provisions, it did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be ultimately prevented by those challenges, including such constraints as the “E10 blendwall”
The proposed volume requirements would push the fuels sector to produce and blend more renewable fuels in 2015 and 2016 in a manner that is consistent with the goals Congress envisioned. The proposed volumes are less than the statutory targets for 2015 and 2016 but higher than what the market would produce and use in the absence of such market-driving standards. The 2015 and 2016 standards are expected to spur further progress in overcoming current constraints and lead to continued growth in the production and use of higher ethanol blends and other qualifying renewable fuels. In this regard the proposed standards are intended to fulfill the spirit and intent of Congress and provide guidance to market participants. Once finalized, this rule would put renewable fuel production and use on a path of steady, ambitious growth.
This proposal comes during a period of transition for the RFS program. In the program's early years, compliance with the advanced biofuel and total renewable volume requirements could be readily achieved in large part by blending increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline and biodiesel into diesel fuel. As the program progresses, however, significantly increasing renewable fuel volumes will require pushing beyond current constraints on blending more ethanol into gasoline and will require sustained growth in the development and use of advanced, non-ethanol renewable fuels, including drop-in renewable fuels. This proposed rule acknowledges this transition by proposing volume requirements based not only on the volumes of renewable fuels that have already been achieved in 2014 and the first part of 2015, but also on the additional volumes that can be supplied later in 2015 and in 2016 as the market addresses infrastructure and other constraints. Our proposal includes volumes of renewable fuel that will require either ethanol use at levels significantly beyond the level of the E10 blendwall, or significantly greater use of non-ethanol renewable fuels than has occurred to date, depending on how the market responds to the standards we set. The standards we are proposing for 2015 and 2016 in particular would drive growth in renewable fuels by providing appropriate incentives to overcome current constraints and challenges to further the goals of Congress in establishing the RFS program. The approach we propose taking for 2015 and 2016 is forward-looking and consistent with the purpose of the statute to significantly increase the amount of renewable fuel used as transportation fuel over time, particularly renewable fuels with the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions, in the transportation fuel supply.
Since the amount of renewable fuel that can be produced and imported is larger than the volume that can be consumed due to overall demand for transportation fuel and constraints on supply to vehicles and engines, there is necessarily competition among biofuels for retail consumption in the United States. In this proposed rule we have worked to achieve an appropriate and reasonable balance between setting volume requirements that would provide support for biofuels that are more established, while also providing opportunities under those volume requirements for emerging biofuels. The approach we have used to determine the proposed volumes is consistent with Congressional intent in establishing the RFS program in that it provides an opportunity for a diverse array of renewable fuel types to be used for compliance. Competition is good for obligated parties and consumers, as it permits the market to determine the most efficient, lowest cost, best performing fuels for meeting the increasingly higher volume requirements anticipated year to year under the program. However, it is also important to provide support to existing successful biofuels and to provide incentives for those fuels, especially advanced biofuels that produce the greatest reductions in greenhouse gases. As discussed in Section III, we are proposing that the specific volume requirement for biomass-based diesel (BBD) should be increased over 2013 levels through 2017 to provide additional support for that industry in a way that furthers the statutory goal of increasing the use of renewable fuel and reducing lifecycle GHGs. At the same time, the increase in the required BBD volume that we are proposing still leaves a substantial volume under the advanced biofuel standard open for competition among all qualifying advanced biofuels.
We recognize that our delay in issuing standards for 2014 and 2015 has created additional uncertainty in the marketplace. We are committed to returning our standard-setting process to the statutory schedule, to provide the certainty that will allow the biofuels sector and the RFS program to succeed. The first step in providing this certainty is finalizing the volume requirements for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by November 30, 2015. For 2014, the compliance year is now over, and any standard EPA sets for 2014 can no longer influence renewable fuel production or use in that year. This is a significant change in circumstances from those at the time of the November 2013 proposal for volume requirements that would have applied in 2014. Therefore, we are issuing this new proposal for 2014 that reflects late issuance of the rule and those volumes of renewable fuel that were actually used in 2014. Details regarding how we calculated such “actual” volumes used in 2014 for purposes of this proposal are discussed in Section II.C.1 below. For 2015, our proposed approach combines a consideration of those volumes of renewable fuel that were actually used in the past with a forward-leaning approach for the future that is intended to promote renewable fuel use. For 2016, our approach to determining the volumes to propose is, as discussed, forward-leaning and consistent with the
This proposal represents EPA's commitment to continued support for steady growth in renewable fuel use. However, we recognize that the RFS standards are only one element among many that factor into the success of renewable fuel development and use over time. The standards that EPA sets each year are an important part of the overall picture, but this program is complemented and supported by programs managed by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE), as well as myriad efforts and initiatives at the regional and local level and within the private sector. DOE has invested considerable resources to help deploy the advanced technologies needed to achieve the statutory aims of lower carbon fuels, and DOE has leveraged several billion dollars more in private support for development of advanced renewable fuels. USDA's Biorefinery Assistance Program has provided loan guarantees for the development and construction of commercial scale biorefineries with a number of the new projects focused on producing fuels other than ethanol. Greater GHG benefits are expected to be realized as the production and use of advanced biofuels accelerates, and the volume requirements that we are proposing support this goal.
The national volume targets of renewable fuel that are intended to be achieved under the RFS program each year (absent an adjustment or waiver by EPA) are specified in CAA section 211(o)(2). The statutory volumes for 2014, 2015, and 2016 are shown in Table I.A-1. The cellulosic biofuel and BBD categories are nested within the advanced biofuel category, which is itself nested within the total renewable fuel category. This means, for example, that each gallon of cellulosic biofuel or BBD that is used to satisfy the individual volume requirements for those fuel types can also be used to satisfy the requirements for advanced biofuel and renewable fuel.
Under the RFS program, EPA is required to determine and publish annual percentage standards for each compliance year. The percentage standards are calculated so as to ensure use in transportation fuel of the national “applicable volumes” of the four types of biofuel (cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel) that are either set forth in the Clean Air Act or established by EPA in accordance with the Act's requirements. The percentage standards are used by obligated parties (generally, producers and importers of gasoline and diesel fuel) to calculate their individual compliance obligations. Each of the four percentage standards is applied to the volume of non-renewable gasoline and diesel that each obligated party produces or imports during the specified calendar year to determine their individual volume obligations with respect to the four renewable fuel types.
EPA is proposing annual applicable volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016, and for BBD for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Table I.A-2 lists the statutory provisions and associated criteria relevant to determining the national applicable volumes used to set the percentage standards in this proposed rule.
In November 2013, we proposed standards for cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for calendar year 2014.
Not only is 2014 over, but this proposal is being released well into 2015. We believe that the standards we set should take these facts into account as we make an effort to return to the annual standard-setting schedule in the statute. Therefore, we plan on finalizing the applicable standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by November of this year. Moreover, the terms of a proposed consent decree to resolve pending litigation concerning EPA's failure to establish standards for 2014 and 2015 by the statutory deadline include a requirement for EPA to promulgate final standards for 2014 and 2015 by November 30, 2015.
As shown in Table I.A-2, the statutory authorities that provide direction to EPA for how to modify or set the applicable standards differ for the four categories of renewable fuel. Under the statute, EPA must annually determine the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for the following year. If the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the applicable volume specified in section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the statute, EPA must lower the applicable volume used to set the annual cellulosic biofuel percentage standard to the projected volume of production during the year. In Section IV of this proposed rule, we present our analysis of cellulosic biofuel production and proposed volumes for 2014, 2015, and 2016. This analysis is based on our evaluation of producers' production plans and progress to date following discussions with cellulosic biofuel producers.
With regard to BBD, CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) specifies the applicable volumes of BBD to be used in the RFS program only through year 2012. For subsequent years the statute sets a minimum volume of 1 billion gallons, and directs EPA to set the required volume after consideration of a number of factors. In Section III of this preamble we discuss our proposed volume requirements for BBD for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Regarding advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, Congress provided several mechanisms through which those volumes could be reduced if necessary. If we lower the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel below the volume specified in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III), we also have the authority to reduce the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel by the same or a lesser amount. We may also reduce the applicable volumes of any of the four renewable fuel types under the general waiver authority provided at CAA 211(o)(7)(A) if EPA finds that implementation of the statutory volumes would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, region, or the United States, or if there is inadequate domestic supply. Section II of this proposed rule describes our intended use of both the cellulosic waiver authority and the general waiver authority to reduce volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to address three important realities:
• Substantial limitations in the supply of cellulosic biofuel,
• Insufficient supply of other advanced biofuel to offset the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel, and
• Practical and legal constraints on the supply of ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them (in the form of E10, E15, and higher level ethanol blends), driven in part by lower gasoline consumption than was expected in 2007 when the target statutory volumes were established.
We believe these realities justify the exercise of the authority Congress provided us to waive the statutory volumes. At the same time, we believe our exercise of the waiver authorities should be consistent with the objectives of the statute to grow renewable fuel use over time. We are proposing to use the waiver authorities to derive applicable volumes that reflect the maximum volumes that can reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed. Thus, while the standards that we set must be achievable, we believe that they must also reflect the power of the market to respond to the standards we set to drive positive change in renewable fuel production and use.
We are proposing to exercise our authority to reduce volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel only to the extent necessary to remove the inadequacy in supply. That is, our objective in exercising the general waiver authority is to set the volume requirements at the boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an inadequate domestic supply.
On the basis of the authorities provided in the statute, we have evaluated the supply of qualifying advanced biofuel and total renewable fuels in light of the three limitations described above and other relevant factors. Based on this evaluation, and after consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we believe that adjustments to the statutory volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel are warranted for 2014, 2015, and 2016. The proposed volumes for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2015 and 2016 would lead to growth in supply beyond 2014 based on the expectation that the market can and will respond to the standards we set. Similarly, we are proposing growth in the required volume of BBD in such a way that both the biodiesel market and other advanced biofuels would grow.
This section briefly summarizes the major provisions of this proposal. We are proposing applicable volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as the applicable volume requirement for BBD for 2017. The following sub-section summarizes our approach to determining the proposed requirements. This action also includes a proposed response to several requests we received in 2013 for a waiver of the 2014 standards. We are also proposing an amendment to the regulations designed to clarify the scope of the algal biofuel pathway. Finally, we are proposing new deadlines for annual compliance reporting and attest reporting for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 compliance years.
Because 2014 has passed, the final rule cannot alter the volumes of renewable fuel produced and consumed during 2014. We believe it is appropriate, therefore, that the standards we establish for 2014 reflect the actual supply in 2014. Similarly, this rulemaking can only have a partial impact on the volumes of renewable fuel produced and consumed in 2015. Although we believe that the standards we set for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel must be ambitious to be consistent with the intent of Congress in establishing the RFS program, we also recognize that the standards we set cannot affect the past. Therefore, in this action we are proposing to base the applicable volume requirements for 2014 on actual renewable fuel use, as determined by data on the number of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated from the EPA-Moderated Transaction System (EMTS), minus the number of RINs retired to account for renewable fuel export as reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) or retired for other purposes unrelated to demonstrating compliance with the annual standards as reported through EMTS.
Similarly for 2015, we are proposing to account for the fact that the final standards will be limited in their ability to affect supply prior to the final rule. For 2016, our proposed volume requirements are based on the expectation that the entire calendar year will be available for obligated parties and the fuels markets to plan for and come into compliance.
We are proposing the same approach to assessing past supply in the standard-setting process for all four renewable fuel categories. However, we are proposing that projections of supply for months after issuance of the NPRM would be determined differently for the four renewable fuel categories. For advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, assessment of future supply would simultaneously reflect the statute's purpose to drive growth in renewable fuels, while also accounting for constraints in the market that make the volumes specified in the statute beyond reach, as described more fully in Section II. For the BBD standard, growth would be based on an analysis of a set of factors stipulated in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), as described in more detail in Section III. Finally, as described in Section IV, the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel would be based on a projection of production that reflects a neutral aim at accuracy as
Since the EISA-amended RFS program began in 2010, we have reduced the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel each year in the context of our annual RFS standards rulemakings to the projected production levels, and we have considered whether to also reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel statutory volumes pursuant to the waiver authority in section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). In the past we have focused primarily on the availability of advanced biofuels in determining whether reductions in the required volume of cellulosic biofuel should be accompanied by reductions in the required volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. The total volume of renewable fuel in the form of ethanol that could realistically be supplied to vehicles as either E10 or higher ethanol blends given various constraints was not a limiting factor in the standard-setting process in prior years. Furthermore, the availability of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels was determined to be sufficient to overcome the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. However, for 2014 and later years, neither of these two factors remains true, and as a result we are proposing reductions for these categories of renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016 using the waiver authorities provided in CAA 211(o)(7).
Our determination in this proposal that the required volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel should be reduced from the statutory targets is based on a consideration of the ability of the market to supply such fuels through domestic production or import and the ability of available renewable fuels to be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.
We have projected applicable volumes for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2015 and 2016 that would result in significant volume growth over the levels supplied in previous years, and which in our judgment are as ambitious as can reasonably be justified. The proposed volume requirements for 2015 and 2016 reflect the growth rates in both categories of renewable fuel that can be attained under a program explicitly designed to be “market-driving,” and that would not be expected to occur in the absence of those volume requirements.
A key issue before the Agency in considering the appropriate biomass-based diesel (BBD) applicable volume is the extent to which a portion of the advanced biofuel volume requirement should be set aside exclusively for BBD. In EISA, Congress chose to set aside a portion of the advanced biofuel standard for BBD, but only through 2012. Beyond 2012 Congress stipulated that EPA, in coordination with other agencies, was to establish the BBD volume taking into consideration the history of the program and various specified factors, providing that the required volume could not be less than 1.0 billion gallons. For 2013, EPA established an applicable volume of 1.28 billion gallons. The BBD standards in practice only establish the minimum volume required; substantially higher volumes have been used in past years to help satisfy the advanced biofuel standard. If BBD outcompetes other advanced biofuels in the marketplace as occurred in 2013, then the BBD standard serves as a floor and not a ceiling. Indeed, only 1.28 billion gallons of BBD were required in 2013, yet 1.55 billion gallons were supplied by the market.
To preserve the important role that BBD plays in the RFS program, as well as to ensure that higher volume requirements for advanced biofuel can be reached, we believe that it would be appropriate to increase the BBD volume requirement for each year in the 2015 to 2017 time period. However, we also believe that it is of ongoing importance that opportunities for other types of advanced biofuel be expanded, such as renewable diesel co-processed with petroleum, renewable gasoline blendstocks, and heating oil, as well as others that are under development. Thus, based on a review of the implementation of the program to date and all the factors required under the statute, we are not only proposing to set the 2014 BBD volume requirement at the actual volume of 1.63 billion gallons, but we are also proposing increases in the applicable volume of BBD to 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 billion gallons for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. We believe that these increases would support the overall goals of the program while also maintaining the incentive for development and growth in production of other advanced biofuels. We believe establishing the volumes at these levels will encourage BBD producers to manufacture higher volumes of fuel that will contribute to the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel requirements, while also leaving considerable opportunity within the advanced biofuel mandate for investment in and production of other types of advanced biofuel with comparable or potentially superior environmental or other benefits.
The cellulosic biofuel industry continues to transition from research and development (R&D) and pilot scale operations to commercial scale facilities, leading to significant increases in production capacity. RIN generation from the first commercial scale cellulosic biofuel facility began in March 2013. Cellulosic biofuel production increased substantially in 2014, with over 33 million gallons in that year. Last year also saw the grand openings of multiple new large commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities, and a significant number of
As part of estimating the volume of cellulosic biofuel that would be made available in the U.S. in 2015 and 2016, we researched all potential production sources by company and facility. This included sources that were still in the planning stages, facilities that are under construction, facilities that are in the commissioning or start-up phases, and facilities that are already producing some volume of cellulosic biofuel. Facilities primarily focused on research and development were not the focus of our assessment, as production from these facilities represents very small volumes of cellulosic biofuel, and these facilities typically have not generated RINs for the fuel they have produced. From this universe of potential cellulosic biofuel sources, we identified the subset that is expected to produce commercial volumes of qualifying cellulosic biofuel for use as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel by the end of 2016. To arrive at projected volumes, we collected relevant information on each facility. We then developed projected production ranges based on factors such as the current and expected state of funding, the status of the technology being used, progress towards construction and production goals, facility registration status, production volumes achieved, and other significant factors that could potentially impact fuel production or the ability of the produced fuel to qualify for cellulosic biofuel RINs. We also used this information to group these companies based on production history and to select a value within the aggregated projected production ranges that we believe best represents the most likely production volumes from each group for each year. Further discussion of these factors and the way they were used to determine our proposed cellulosic biofuel projections for 2014, 2015, and 2016 can be found in Section IV.
The renewable fuel standards are expressed as a volume percentage and are used by each refiner and importer of fossil-based gasoline or diesel to determine their renewable fuel volume obligations. The percentage standards are set so that if each obligated party meets the standards, and if EIA projections of gasoline and diesel use for the coming year prove to be accurate, then the amount of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, BBD, and advanced biofuel actually used will meet the volumes required on a nationwide basis.
Four separate percentage standards are required under the RFS program, corresponding to the four separate renewable fuel categories shown in Table I.A-1. The specific formulas we use in calculating the renewable fuel percentage standards are contained in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1405 and repeated in Section V.B.1. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to projected non-renewable gasoline and diesel volume. The volume of transportation gasoline and diesel used to calculate the proposed percentage standards was derived from EIA projections. The proposed standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 are shown in Table I.B.5-1. Detailed calculations can be found in Section V, including the projected gasoline and diesel volumes used.
Concurrently with the November 29, 2013 proposal for 2014 RFS standards, we also published a separate
The petitions generally asserted that for 2014 there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel and therefore RINs, due both to E10 blendwall constraints, and limitations on the supply of higher level ethanol blends, and of non-ethanol renewable fuels. Certain of the petitioners argued that this inadequate supply of renewable fuel (and RINs) will lead to an inadequate supply of gasoline and diesel, because refiners and importers, faced with a shortage of RINs, will reduce their production of gasoline and diesel for the domestic market. They argued that this will in turn severely harm the economy.
As calendar year 2014 has passed, we believe it is appropriate to set the applicable volume requirements at the volumes that were actually supplied in 2014. We do not believe that use of 2014 renewable fuel volumes severely harmed the economy, and we believe that it is straightforward to conclude that there was an adequate supply of the volumes of renewable fuel that were actually used in 2014. Therefore, we do not believe that adequate justification exists for setting the 2014 volume requirements at levels below those actually supplied. We propose that our final action in this rulemaking will resolve the extent to which waivers are appropriate for 2014 and, therefore, will identify the scope of relief that should be accorded petitioners.
In addition to proposing the aforementioned volume requirements and associated percentage standards, we are also proposing amendments to the RFS requirements to address two issues. First, we are proposing changes with respect to the existing algal oil pathway to clarify that only biofuels produced from oil from algae grown photosynthetically qualify for the RFS program under this pathway. We are aware of several companies that plan to produce biofuels from algae that use non-photosynthetic types of
We are also proposing to revise the annual compliance reporting deadlines for obligated parties and renewable fuel exporters, and the attest engagement reporting deadlines for obligated parties, RIN-generating renewable fuel producers and importers, other parties holding RINs, renewable fuel exporters, and independent third-party auditors for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 compliance years. The proposed deadlines would vary for each of these parties depending on the applicable compliance period, and some parties would be required to submit partial annual reports representing a portion of the 2014 compliance year. A detailed description of our proposed changes to reporting deadlines can be found in Section VI.B.
Under CAA 211(o)(3)(B)(i), EPA must determine and publish the annual percentage standards by November 30 of the preceding year, and it must establish applicable volumes for biomass-based diesel 14 months in advance of the compliance year. EPA did not meet the statutory deadline for the 2014 or the 2015 percentage standards, nor the 2014, 2015, and 2016 biomass-based diesel applicable volumes. Nevertheless, we are proposing that the percentage standards established through this rulemaking would apply to all gasoline and diesel produced or imported in calendar years 2014, 2015, or 2016 as applicable.
We acknowledge that this rule is being proposed later than the statutory deadlines noted above. However, this delay does not deprive EPA of authority to issue applicable volumes and standards for these calendar years. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently upheld the 2013 RFS standards even though they were issued more than eight months after statutory deadline.
EPA proposes to exercise its authority to issue standards applicable to past time periods in a reasonable way. Thus, for 2014, EPA is proposing to establish renewable fuel obligations that reflect actual renewable fuel used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel during that time period, and the proposed compliance deadline for 2014 allows time for obligated parties to complete necessary transactions. For 2015 we are similarly proposing to take into account actual renewable fuel use during the time that has already passed in 2015. Renewable fuel producers generated RINs throughout 2014, and have also been generating 2015 RINs since the beginning of the calendar year. To varying degrees, obligated parties have been acquiring RINs since the beginning of 2014 in anticipation of the publication of final volume requirements and standards. While we acknowledge the uncertainty that the market has experienced due to the delay, our proposal to determine the applicable requirements to account for past production for both 2014 and 2015 means that there will be an adequate quantity of RINs available to satisfy those portions of the proposed requirements.
We recognize that a number of challenges must be overcome in order to fully realize the potential for greater use of renewable fuels in the United States. We also recognize that the RFS program plays a central role in creating the incentives for realizing that potential. The standards being proposed would require that significant progress is made in overcoming those challenges. We expect future standards to both reflect and anticipate progress of the industry and market in providing for continued expansion in the supply of renewable fuels.
We believe that the supply of renewable fuels can continue to increase in the coming years despite the constraints associated with shortfalls in cellulosic biofuel production and other advanced biofuels, and constraints associated with supplying renewable fuels to the vehicles and engines that can use them. As described in Section II.B, we believe that the market is capable of responding to ambitious standards by expanding infrastructure and modifying fuel pricing to provide incentives for the production and use of renewable fuels. While we do not believe that the statutory volumes can be reached within the next several years, the market is capable of attaining
In future years, we would expect to use the most up-to-date information available to project the growth that can realistically be achieved considering the ability of the RFS program to spur growth in the volume of ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable fuels that can be supplied and consumed by vehicles. In particular we will focus on the emergence of advanced biofuels including cellulosic biofuel. Many companies are continuing to invest in efforts ranging from research and development to the construction of commercial-scale facilities to increase the production potential of next generation biofuels. We will continue to evaluate new pathways especially for advanced biofuels and respond to petitions, expanding the availability of feedstocks, production technologies, and fuel types eligible under the RFS program.
In addition to ongoing efforts to evaluate new pathways for advanced biofuel production, we are aware that other actions can also play a role in improving incentives provided by the RFS program to overcome challenges that limit the potential for increased volumes of renewable fuels. Such actions could potentially include amendments to program regulations that would help enable and potentially accelerate growth in renewable fuel volumes over time. We are currently considering ideas and various options for such actions. The details of such actions are beyond the scope of this current rulemaking, but we will continue to engage interested stakeholders as we move forward.
There are also other approaches to determining volume requirements for future years that have been suggested as potentially helping to ensure growth in supply of renewable fuel. For instance, our proposed approach to determining the volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2015 and 2016 is one of determining the maximum achievable supply by acknowledging constraints on supply to consumers resulting from the E10 blendwall, limitations in production and import capabilities, and the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set. As described in Section II.D.2, there are a variety of ways that the market could respond to our proposed standards.
However, we recognize that since the majority of renewable fuel today is currently consumed as 10 percent ethanol blends, changes in demand for gasoline can have a significant impact on the ability of the marketplace to blend fixed volumes of renewable fuels. As such, an alternative approach to characterizing expected growth in renewable fuels would be to project the share of the fuel pool that can reasonably be expected to be comprised of renewable fuel over time. In this way, increases or decreases in gasoline demand would be reflected in corresponding increases or decreases in mandated renewable fuel volumes. The distinction between volumes and renewable share (share of the market, expressed as a percentage) is not important once the annual standards are established because the volumes are converted to shares (percentage standards) and changes in gasoline and diesel fuel volume then automatically lead to corresponding changes in renewable fuel volumes. However, future gasoline consumption depends on many factors and is highly uncertain; there may be unanticipated changes in fuel consumption compared to current EIA projections, as there have been in the past. For example, if EPA were to adopt an outlook for future years based on a growth rate for the renewable share of the fuel pool, it would be easier to maintain such a growth rate—rather than maintaining an outlook for specific volumes—if gasoline consumption becomes unexpectedly low. We recognize that projections of expected future growth in renewable fuels can be expressed in terms of either absolute volumes or as a share of the transportation fuel pool, that stakeholders may see advantages in the latter, and we expect there may be additional conversation on this issue in the future.
The national volume targets of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to be used under the RFS program each year are specified in CAA section 211(o)(2). However, two statutory provisions authorize EPA to reduce these volumes under certain circumstances. EPA may reduce these volumes to the extent that we reduce the applicable volume for cellulosic biofuel, or if the criteria are met under the general waiver authority.
While we are proposing to use our waiver authorities under the law to reduce applicable volumes from the statutory levels, the proposed volume requirements are nevertheless intended to drive significant growth in renewable fuel use beyond what would occur in the absence of such requirements. The proposed volume requirements are intended to be market-driving while staying within the limits of feasibility. The net impact of these proposed volume requirements is that the necessary volumes of both advanced biofuel and conventional (non-advanced) renewable fuel would increase over levels used in the past. The volumes that we are proposing are shown below.
Congress specified increasing annual volume objectives in the statute for total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel for every year through 2022, and for biomass-based diesel (BBD) through 2012, and authorized EPA to set volume objectives for subsequent years after consideration of several specified factors. However, Congress recognized that circumstances could arise that might require a reduction in the volume objectives specified in the statute as evidenced by the waiver provisions in CAA 211(o)(7). As described below, we believe that limitations in production or importation of qualifying renewable fuels, and factors that limit supplying those fuels to the vehicles that can consume them, both constitute circumstances that warrant a waiver under section 211(o)(7). The decrease in total gasoline consumption in recent years which resulted in a corresponding and proportional decrease in the maximum amount of ethanol that can be consumed if all gasoline was E10, the limited number and geographic distribution of retail stations that offer higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, the number of FFVs that have access to E85, as well
EPA is proposing to use two separate and complementary legal authorities to set required volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to levels below the volume objectives described in the statute: The cellulosic waiver authority under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i), and the general waiver authority under CAA section 211(o)(7)(A). This section discusses both of these statutory authorities and briefly describes our proposed use of the authorities to determine appropriate reductions in advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in comparison to the statutory volumes.
As described in Section I, EPA has withdrawn its November 29, 2013 proposed rule to establish 2014 RFS standards, and is re-proposing standards for 2014 that reflect consideration of actual renewable fuel use during 2014. Since the current proposal is substantially different than the previous one, we are generally not providing at this time, and do not intend to provide at the time of our final action on this proposal, a response to comments that were submitted in response to our earlier proposal. However, since this proposal envisions interpretation and use of RFS waiver authorities in essentially the same manner as proposed in the withdrawn NPRM, and since we received a substantial number of comments on that NPRM related to how the waiver authorities should be interpreted and used, we are providing a general response to the major comments we have received from stakeholders on these issues—either in direct response to our November 29, 2013 NPRM or in subsequent dialogue. We have not attempted to respond to all comments on these issues, but instead hope to advance stakeholders' ability to meaningfully comment on this proposal by discussing our consideration to date of the most common comments we have received on these issues.
Under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i), if EPA determines that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for the following year is less than the applicable volume provided in the statute, then EPA must reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel to the projected volume available during that calendar year.
Section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) also provides that “[f]or any calendar year in which the Administrator makes such a reduction, the Administrator may also reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel and advanced biofuels requirement established under paragraph (2)(B) by the same or a lesser volume.” Using this authority, the reductions in total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel can be less than or equal to, but no more than, the amount of reduction in the cellulosic biofuel volume. In prior actions EPA has interpreted this provision as authorizing EPA to reduce both total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel, by the same amount, if EPA reduces the volume of cellulosic biofuel.
The cellulosic waiver provision was recently discussed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the context of its review of EPA's 2013 annual RFS rule. As the Court explained,
For the 2013 RFS rule, the Court determined that EPA had reasonably declined to use the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the advanced and total renewable fuel statutory applicable volumes by analyzing “the availability of renewable fuels that would qualify as advanced biofuel and renewable fuel, the ability of those fuels to be consumed, and carryover RINs from 2012.” Id. at 916.
Some stakeholders have suggested that EPA may only exercise the cellulosic waiver authority in circumstances described in Section 211(o)(7)(A) (that is, where there is inadequate domestic supply or severe harm to the environment or economy), or that it must in considering use of the cellulosic waiver authority consider the factors specified in Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) that are required considerations when EPA sets applicable volumes for years in which the statute does not do so. Contrary to these comments, the DC Circuit found in
In general, we do not believe that it would be consistent with the energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals of the statute to reduce the applicable volumes of renewable fuel set forth in the statute absent a substantial justification for doing so. When using the cellulosic waiver authority, we believe that there would be a substantial justification in circumstances where qualifying renewable fuels either are not available, or legal and practical constraints limit their supply to vehicles and other qualifying uses. In addition we may on a case-by-case basis consider additional factors on our own initiative, if we determine that such factors may present substantial justification for reducing the statutory volumes, or additional justification for not reducing them, and we will also consider all comments on the matter. Factors considered by EPA in exercising the cellulosic waiver authority may include those specified in Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), or other factors that EPA deems relevant in the context of the statutory objectives and program structure. We will identify and evaluate any such factors on a case-by-case basis. For this proposed rulemaking, we have identified the availability of renewable fuels and the legal and practical constraints on their supply to vehicles and other qualifying uses as the factors that justify the proposed exercise of our cellulosic waiver authority. We solicit comment on other relevant factors, and whether the relevant factors would justify reducing advanced and renewable fuel volumes by different amounts.
As discussed in Section IV, we are proposing to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel for 2014, 2015 and 2016. We are also proposing to use our cellulosic waiver authority under section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) to reduce the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for these years as a first step in determining the volume requirements to propose. Our proposed justification for doing so is a limitation in the availability of
CAA 211(o)(7)(A) provides that EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of Energy (DOE), may waive the applicable volume requirements of the Act in whole or in part based on a petition by one or more States, by any person subject to the requirements of the Act, or by the EPA Administrator on her own motion. Such a waiver must be based on a determination by the Administrator, after public notice and opportunity for comment, that:
• Implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or the environment of a State, a region, or the United States; or
• There is an inadequate domestic supply.
We are proposing to use the general waiver authority based on the statute's authorization for the Administrator to act on her own motion on a finding of inadequate domestic supply.
Because the general waiver provision provides EPA the discretion to waive the volume requirements of the Act “in whole or in part,” we interpret this section as granting EPA authority to waive any or all of the four applicable volume requirements in appropriate circumstances. Thus, for example, unlike the cellulosic waiver authority, a reduction in total renewable fuel pursuant to the general waiver authority is not limited by the reduction in cellulosic biofuel.
EPA has had only limited opportunity to date to interpret and apply the waiver provision in CAA section 211(o)(7)(A)(ii) related to “inadequate domestic supply,” and has never before done so in the context of deriving an appropriate annual RFS standard. As explained in greater detail below, we believe that this ambiguous provision is reasonably and best interpreted to encompass the full range of constraints that could result in an inadequate supply of renewable fuel to the ultimate consumers, including fuel infrastructure and other constraints. This would include, for instance, factors affecting the ability to produce or import qualifying renewable fuels as well as factors affecting the ability to distribute, blend, dispense, and consume those renewable fuels in vehicles.
The waiver provision at CAA 211(o)(7)(A)(ii) is ambiguous in several respects. First, it does not specify what the general term “supply” refers to. The common understanding of this term is an amount of a resource or product that is available for use by the person or place at issue.
The waiver provision also does not specify what factors are relevant in determining the adequacy of the supply. Adequacy of the supply would logically be understood in terms of the parties who use the supply of renewable fuel. Adequacy of supply could affect various parties, including obligated parties, blenders, and consumers. Adequacy of supply with respect to the consumer might well involve consideration of factors different from those involved when considering adequacy of supply to the obligated parties. We believe that interpreting this waiver provision as authorizing EPA to consider the adequacy of supply of renewable fuel to all of the relevant parties, including the adequacy of supply to the ultimate consumer of renewable fuel blended into transportation fuel, is consistent with the common understanding of the terms used in this waiver provision, especially in the context of a fuel program that is aimed at increasing the use of renewable fuel by consumers. In our view, this is the most reasonable and appropriate construction of this ambiguous language in light of the overall policy goals of the RFS program.
EPA has reviewed other fuel related provisions of the Clean Air Act with somewhat similar waiver provisions, and they highlight both the ambiguity of the RFS general waiver provision and the reasonableness of applying it broadly to include adequacy of supply to the ultimate consumer of transportation fuel. For example, CAA section 211(k)(6) contains provisions allowing EPA to defer the application of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in states seeking to opt-in to the program. There are two categories of states that may opt-in: Those with nonattainment classifications indicating a more serious and/or longstanding air quality problem (leading to classification as a Marginal, Moderate, Serious or Severe nonattainment area) and those that do not have such serious concerns, but which are nevertheless within the “ozone transport region” established by CAA section 184(a). For the states with
1. Infrastructure upgrades necessary to shift from use of conventional gasoline to RFG are relatively modest,;
2. The statute provides for up to one year between EPA's receipt of an opt-in request and the effective date of a rule requiring use of RFG, allowing time for the needed infrastructure upgrades; and
3. Opt-ins typically occur one state at a time, allowing available infrastructure expansion resources to be focused in a relatively small geographic area.
In contrast, allowing RFS waivers only where there is insufficient “capacity to produce” renewable fuel would be extremely problematic because:
1. The ethanol industry has the ability to produce far more ethanol than can currently be consumed in the U.S.;
2. Ethanol is already being supplied at E10 levels, and any further growth in ethanol use requires the time consuming installation of costly new E15 or E85 pumps and tanks;
3. The number of vehicles that can use higher ethanol bends is limited;
4. The statute envisions only one month between establishment of annual standards and the start of a compliance year, allowing limited time for infrastructure enhancements; and
5. The RFS is a nationwide program, and infrastructure improvements would be needed throughout the country at the same time to increase the nation's ability to consume renewable fuels at levels corresponding with production capacity.
CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii) provides EPA with waiver authority to address “extreme and unusual fuel or fuel additive supply circumstances . . . which prevent the distribution of an adequate supply of the fuel or fuel additive to consumers.” The supply circumstances must be the result of a natural disaster, an Act of God, a pipeline or refinery equipment failure or another event that could not reasonably have been foreseen, and granting the waiver must be “in the public interest.” In this case, Congress clearly specified that the adequacy of the supply is judged in terms of the availability of the fuel or fuel additive to the ultimate consumer, and includes consideration of the ability to distribute the required fuel or fuel additive to the ultimate consumer. Although the RFS waiver provision does not contain any such explicit clarification from Congress, its broad and ambiguous wording provides EPA the discretion to reasonably interpret the scope of the RFS waiver provision as relating to supply of renewable fuel (in neat or blended form) to the ultimate consumer.
CAA section 211(m)(3)(C) allows EPA to delay the effective date of oxygenated gasoline requirements for certain carbon monoxide nonattainment areas if EPA finds “an inadequate domestic supply of, or distribution capacity for, oxygenated gasoline. . . . or fuel additives” needed to make oxygenated gasoline. Here, Congress chose to expressly differentiate between “domestic supply” and “distribution capacity,” indicating that each of these elements was to be considered separately. This would indicate that the term inadequate supply, although ambiguous for the reasons discussed above, could in appropriate circumstances be read as more limited in scope. In contrast to the RFS waiver provision, the section 211(m) waiver provision includes additional text that makes clear that EPA's authority includes consideration of distribution capacity—reducing the ambiguity inherent in using just the general phrase “inadequate domestic supply.” Presumably this avoids a situation where ambiguity would result in an overly narrow administrative interpretation. The oxygenated gasoline waiver provision is also instructive in that it clarifies that it applies separately to both finished oxygenated fuel and to oxygenated fuel blending components. That is, there could be an adequate supply of the oxygenate, such as ethanol, but not an adequate supply of the blended fuel which is sold to the consumer. The RFS waiver provision employs the phrase “inadequate domestic supply” without further specification or clarification, thus providing EPA the discretion to determine whether the adequacy of the supply of renewable fuel can reasonably be judged in terms of availability for use by the ultimate consumer, including consideration of the capacity to distribute the product to the ultimate consumer. In contrast to the section 211(m) waiver provision, Congress arguably did not mandate that the RFS waiver provision be interpreted as providing authority to address problems affecting the supply of renewable fuel to the ultimate consumer. However, given the ambiguity of the RFS provision, we believe that it does provide EPA the discretion to adopt such an interpretation, resulting in a policy approach consistent with that required by the less ambiguous section 211(m) waiver provision.
As the above review of various waiver provisions in Title II of the Clean Air Act makes clear, Congress has used the terms “supply” and “inadequate supply” in different waiver provisions. In the RFS general waiver provision, Congress spoke in general terms and did not address the scope of activities or persons or places that are the focus in determining the adequacy of supply. In other cases, Congress provided, to varying degrees, more explicit direction. Overall, the various waiver provisions lend support to the view that it is permissible, where Congress has used just the ambiguous phrase “inadequate domestic supply” in the general waiver provision, to consider supply in terms of distribution and use by the ultimate consumer, and that the term “inadequate supply” of a fuel need not be read as referring to just the capacity to produce renewable fuel or the capacity to supply it to obligated parties and blenders.
We are aware that prior to final adoption of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress had before it bills that would have provided for an EPA waiver in situations where there was “inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet the requirement.”
We believe that it is permissible under the statute to interpret the term “inadequate domestic supply” to authorize EPA to consider the full range of constraints, including legal, fuel infrastructure and other constraints, that could result in an inadequate supply of renewable fuels to consumers. Under this interpretation, we would not limit ourselves to consideration of the capacity to produce or import renewable fuels but would also consider practical and legal constraints affecting the volume of qualifying renewable fuel supplied to the ultimate consumer.
We believe that our proposed interpretation is consistent with the language of section 211(o), and Congressional intent in enacting the program. It is evident from section 211(o) that Congress's intent was not simply to increase production of renewable fuel, but rather to provide that certain volumes of renewable fuel be used by the ultimate consumer as a replacement for the use of fossil based transportation fuel. The very definition of “renewable fuel” requires that the fuel be “used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.” CAA section 211(o)(1)(I); see also CAA 211(o)(1)(A) (definition of “additional renewable fuel”). The RFS program does not achieve the desired benefits of the program unless renewable fuels are actually used to replace fossil based transportation fuels in the United States.
As described in more detail in Section II.A.5 below, although at least for 2014 and possibly 2015 and 2016, there is no shortage of ethanol and other types of renewable fuel that could be used to satisfy the statutory applicable volume of total renewable fuel, there are practical and legal constraints on the ability of ethanol to be delivered to and used as transportation fuel by vehicles. Legal requirements limit ethanol content of most gasoline to 10% (which is delivered as E10), but for subsets of vehicles allow up to either 15% ethanol (for 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles) or up to 85% ethanol (for flex fuel vehicles).
We proposed the same interpretation of our general waiver authority in the November, 2013 NPRM for the 2014 RFS standards (which we are withdrawing in light of this re-proposal of 2014 standards) and we received many comments addressing our proposed interpretation. Although we are not generally responding to comments on the withdrawn 2014 RFS proposal, to aid the public in their evaluation of this proposal we discuss below the most common themes of comments received and our current assessment of them.
A number of stakeholders disagreed that a review of other CAA waiver authorities supports the conclusion that the term “inadequate domestic supply” is ambiguous, and that it can be interpreted to include consideration of infrastructure and other constraints related to the delivery and use of renewable fuel by vehicles. Most such stakeholders focused on section
Some stakeholders have asserted that interpreting the general waiver authority to allow consideration of all constraints on the use of ethanol by the ultimate consumer would amount to focusing on “demand” rather than “supply” and would, therefore, be impermissible under the Act. EPA does not agree that a broad consideration of such factors as physical limitations in infrastructure (e.g., availability of E15 and E85 pumps), legal barriers to use of renewable fuel, or ability of vehicles to use renewable fuel at varying concentrations, represent consideration of `demand' rather than “supply.' These factors operate as practical and legal limits to how much renewable fuel can be distributed to and used by consumers, and therefore clearly relate to how much renewable fuel can be “supplied” to them. Although there may be some element of consumer preference reflected in the historic growth patterns of renewable fuel infrastructure and the current status of the infrastructure, it is nevertheless the case as of today that there are a limited number of fueling stations selling high-ethanol blends, and as a result, the number of stations operates as a constraint on how much ethanol can be delivered. Similarly, only flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) can legally use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 15 percent. The population of FFVs has grown considerably in recent years, but is still only a small fraction of the passenger vehicle fleet and there is an even smaller number of FFVs that have ready access to an E85 retail outlet. As a result, the number of FFVs with access to E85 also operates as a constraint on how much ethanol can be delivered. These constraints limit the supply of ethanol to vehicles in the 2014-2016 time period and, we believe, are appropriately considered in evaluating the need for an RFS waiver under section 211(o)(7)(A).
Some stakeholders have stated that even if the term “inadequate domestic supply,” were ambiguous, EPA's proposed interpretation is not reasonable because it would either reward obligated parties for their intransigence in planning to supply the volumes set forth in the statute, or because EPA's interpretation would effectively enshrine the status quo, and would prevent the growth in renewable fuel use that Congress sought to achieve in establishing the program. We agree that obligated parties have had years to plan for the E10 blendwall and that there clearly are steps that obligated parties could take to increase investments needed to increase renewable fuel use above current levels, as we have noted in prior actions.
In the context of a forward-looking annual RFS standards rulemaking issued consistent with the statutory schedule, we propose that the evaluation of “supply” for purposes of determining whether “inadequate domestic supply” exists pursuant to section 211(o)(7)A)(ii), should involve an assessment of the maximum renewable fuel volumes that can reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed, and a comparison of those volumes to statutory volumes. This is the approach to the assessment of “supply” that we are proposing today for purposes of the 2016 RFS standards. However, the factual situation is different for 2014, since neither this proposed rule nor the final rule we expect to issue later in 2015 can influence the volumes of renewable fuel produced and consumed in the past. Accordingly, our assessment of the “supply” available for RFS compliance during 2014 must necessarily focus on the number of RINs generated in 2014 that are available for compliance with the applicable standards. To set the volume requirements at a higher level would require either noncompliance, which EPA deems an unreasonable approach, or the drawdown of the bank of carryover RINs. Although the availability of carryover RINs is a relevant consideration in determining the extent to which a waiver is justified, see Monroe 750 F.3d at 917, we believe that carryover RINs serve an important function under the program, including providing a means of compliance when natural disasters cause unexpected supply limitations, and that in the current circumstances EPA should not set the annual standards for 2014-2016 at levels that would clearly necessitate a reduction in the current bank of carryover RINs. See Section II.F for further discussion of our consideration of carryover RINs in this proposal.
For 2015, the situation is essentially a hybrid of the fact patterns for 2014
EPA is today proposing reductions in the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel based on limitations in the availability of qualifying renewable fuels and factors that constrain supplying available volumes to the vehicles that can consume them. These two factors are both relevant forms of inadequate domestic supply, which authorize reductions under the general waiver authority and also justify reductions under the cellulosic waiver authority. We believe that reducing both total renewable and advanced biofuel are appropriate responses to these circumstances. We are proposing to use both the cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and the general waiver authority to reduce the statutory volumes for both advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel by 2.6 billion gallons in 2015 and 3.85 billion gallons in 2016. These two authorities are exercised individually, in a complementary fashion, and each justify our action. In addition, as the volume reduction required for total renewable fuel is greater than that needed for advanced biofuel, we are proposing to use the general waiver authority exclusively as the basis for further reducing the applicable volume of total renewable fuel by 1.6 billion gallons in 2015 and 1.0 billion gallons in 2016.
In order to use the general waiver authority in CAA 211(o)(7)(A) to reduce the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, we must make a determination that there is either “inadequate domestic supply” or that implementation of the statutory volumes would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region or the United States. This section summarizes our proposed determination that there is an inadequate domestic supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in the time period 2014-2016, and thus that the statutory volume targets are not achievable.
As described in Section II.C.1 below, actual supply of renewable fuel in 2014 was 2.22 billion gallons below the applicable volume target in the statute (15.93 versus 18.15 billion gallons). Since the requirements we establish for 2014 cannot change what occurred in the past, our assessment of the “supply” available for RFS compliance during 2014 must necessarily focus on actual renewable fuel use, which we propose to be based on the volume of RINs actually generated in 2014 and available for use in complying with the applicable standards.
The statute sets targets of 20.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2015 and 22.25 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2016. We have determined that these volumes cannot be achieved under even the most optimistic assumptions given current circumstances. To make this determination, we first assumed that every gallon of gasoline would contain 10% ethanol, and also assumed production and use of BBD volumes at the highest historical level, which occurred in 2014. When these supplies of renewable fuel are taken into account, a significant additional volume of renewable fuel would still be needed for the statutory volume targets to be met.
Based on the current and near-future capabilities of the industry, we expect that only a relatively small portion of the additional volumes needed would come from non-ethanol cellulosic biofuel, non-ethanol advanced biofuels other than BBD, and non-ethanol conventional renewable fuels. In total these sources could account for several hundred million gallons, as demonstrated by supply of these sources in 2013 and 2014.
If all of the additional volumes needed were biodiesel, the industry would need to supply a total of about 4.5 billion gallons in 2015 and 5.7 billion physical gallons in 2016. There currently exists only about 2.8 billion gallons of registered biodiesel production capacity in the U.S., though total production capacity considering unregistered facilities may be as high as 3.6 billion gallons. In addition to expanding the registered production capacity, the industry would need to restart all idled facilities, secure sufficient feedstocks including diverting them from current uses, implement significantly expanded distribution, blending, and retail sales infrastructure, and establish new contracts for distribution and sales. Based on current market circumstances, including the biodiesel sector's current production capacity and broader infrastructure limitations, we do not believe that an expansion in production and use of this magnitude is possible in 2015 or 2016. Just as importantly, volumes on the order of 4.5 billion gallons in 2015 and 5.7 billion physical gallons in 2016 are far in excess of what could actually be consumed in this short timeframe. This volume of BBD would constitute about 8% of the diesel pool in 2015 and 10% in 2016.
Alternatively, if all of the additional volumes were ethanol, the U.S. would need to consume volumes of E85 far higher, in our estimation, than the market is capable of supplying: in 2015 the required volume of E85 would need to be about 6.4 billion gallons, while in 2016 it would need to be about 9.2 billion gallons.
The additional volume of 4.22 billion gallons in 2015 or 6.06 billion gallons in 2016 could also be satisfied through production and use of a combination of BBD and E85. However, even in this case the volumes are untenable. Figure II.A.5-1 shows the range of possibilities for both 2015 and 2016.
Although the statute does not require that EPA issue a waiver of the statutory applicable volumes when EPA determines that there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel, we are in fact proposing to do so.
In the November 2013 NPRM we projected achievable volumes by following an approach wherein we first projected future volumes for each of the various components of the renewable fuel pool and then combined them using a statistical approach to arrive at overall totals. By considering each possible source of renewable fuel in isolation, we had intended to reduce the generation of the proposed standards to a collection of more easily estimated components. We acknowledged that each source of renewable fuel was not independent from other sources under the influence of the RFS program, but we nevertheless treated them as such. However, because the projected volume of each individual source was uncertain, there needed to be flexibility in the proposed volume requirements so that excesses of one source could compensate for potential shortfalls in another source. To account for this fact, and also for the fact that the uncertainty associated with each individual source was compounded when those sources were added together, we targeted the mean of the projected range of potentially achievable volumes rather than some higher value as the basis for the proposed volume requirements.
After further consideration, we believe that the approach we took in the November 2013 NPRM underestimated achievable volumes and did not fully account for the potential of the market to respond to the standards that we set. We have determined that considering each potential source of renewable fuel in isolation, adding those sources together, and then using the mean of the resulting range was more suited to taking a neutral aim at accuracy of supply, rather than estimating the maximum volumes that can be achieved from a responsive market as implicitly required by the statute. The applicable
Section II.A above lays out the rationale and justification for exercising our waiver authority under the Clean Air Act's relevant provisions. In determining the specific volumes to propose, we have considered not only the current circumstances and limitations in the ability to supply renewable fuels to the consumer, but also historic renewable fuel growth patterns and maximum supplies, the intent of Congress to use the RFS program to drive growth in renewable fuel use, and our assessment (based on years of regulating the fuel production and distribution industry) of the ability of the RFS program to effect changes that will result in growth. As a result, our proposed approach envisions growth in supply beyond historical levels as envisioned by the statute. This section provides an overview of our approach to determining the proposed volume requirements.
Although there is scant legislative history for the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) to confirm the facts that were considered by Congress at the time of enactment, we believe that when Congress specified the renewable fuel volume targets that the RFS program was to attain, that it likely was with the understanding that the growth reflected in the statutory tables of applicable volumes would be beyond any previously demonstrated ability of the industry to produce, distribute, and consume renewable fuels. For example, the annual average growth reflected in the statutory volumes for the time period between 2009 and 2022 is 1.6 billion gallons per year for advanced biofuel and 1.9 billion gallons per year for total renewable fuel. However, in the period 2001 to 2007 leading up to enactment of EISA, annual average growth rates were lower: 0.8 billion gallons per year for ethanol, which was not advanced biofuel, and 0.07 billion gallons per year for biodiesel. The supply of other renewable fuels during this timeframe was essentially zero. In other words, Congress set targets that envisioned growth at a pace that far exceeded historical growth and prioritized that growth as occurring principally in advanced biofuels (contrary to historical growth patterns). It is apparent, therefore, that Congress intended to require changes that would be unlikely to occur absent the new program.
Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Congress expected the very high volumes that it specified in the statute to be reached only through the consumption of E10; indeed the statute does not explicitly require the use of ethanol at all. At the time EISA was passed in 2007, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2007 projected that 17.3 billion gallons of ethanol is the maximum that could be consumed in 2022 if all gasoline contained E10 and there was no E0, E15, or E85.
Congress did not explicitly indicate, in EISA or in any other document associated with it, the sort of changes that may have been expected to occur to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022. Instead, there was an implicit assumption that the market would respond appropriately to overcome those obstacles to significant growth that might exist. Today we know that the changes needed to significantly expand renewable fuel use fall into a select number of areas, including:
We believe that over time use of both higher level ethanol blends and non-ethanol biofuels can and will increase, consistent with Congress' intent in enacting EPAct and EISA. As stated above, while Congress provided waiver authority to account for supply challenges, we do not believe that Congress intended the renewable fuels market to be ultimately constrained by the E10 blendwall or any other particular limitation that may exist in supplying renewable fuels. The fact that Congress set volume targets reflecting increasing and substantial amounts of renewable fuel use clearly signals that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies and overcome supply limitations. Notwithstanding these facts,
Congress charged EPA with implementing a program whose explicit goal is increased renewable fuel use over time, and EPA, in developing an implementation framework, sought to achieve this goal in a fashion that maximizes flexibility and the power of the marketplace, while at the same time recognizing the complex and disaggregated structure of the fuel production and distribution systems. EPA created a system whereby renewable fuel producers generate RINs for each gallon of renewable fuel produced. These RINs, under certain conditions, can be separated from the renewable fuel and bought and sold by registered parties. They are ultimately used by obligated parties as a means of demonstrating compliance with their renewable volume obligations. In establishing a compliance approach based on RINs, EPA sought to encourage efficient, market-based solutions to the challenges associated with increasing the production, distribution, and consumption of renewable fuels.
The RIN system is the mechanism established by EPA for obligated parties to demonstrate compliance with the standards, and is designed to provide obligated parties flexibility in the means they use to demonstrate compliance. The RFS program, acting through the mechanism of the RIN system, operates to provide an incentive for renewable fuel producers to increase the production of renewable fuels by, in effect, increasing the price blenders and obligated parties are willing to pay for renewable fuels. Under the RFS program, renewable fuel producers sell not only the fuels they produce, such as ethanol or biodiesel, but also the RINs that are “assigned” to the renewable fuel. As the demand for RINs increases, the willingness of the market to pay for renewable fuels and the RINs assigned to them also increases. When working efficiently, this system allows renewable fuel producers to continue to profitably market renewable fuel at times that would otherwise result in negative margins, such as when the price of feedstock or other inputs are unusually high, the price of the petroleum fuels that renewable fuels replace is unusually low, or when market demand for renewable fuel is low. In this way the RFS program, through the RIN system, also assists renewable fuel producers seeking to finance the construction of new facilities, especially facilities capable of producing cellulosic or advanced biofuels, by providing certainty that there will be a market for increasing volumes of renewable fuels.
The RIN system should also incentivize the development of the renewable fuel distribution infrastructure by helping to decrease the net cost of renewable fuels. As mentioned, when fuel blenders or obligated parties purchase renewable fuel directly from renewable fuel producers this fuel generally comes with an assigned RIN. When a fuel blender blends the renewable fuel with petroleum-based fuel to create finished transportation fuel, the blender is able to separate and sell the RIN that was previously assigned to the renewable fuel. Whatever price the fuel blender or obligated party receives for the RIN can be thought of as reducing the net purchase price of the renewable fuel. For example, if a fuel blender purchases a gallon of ethanol with an attached RIN for $1.50 and, after blending the ethanol to create transportation fuel, sells the RIN for $0.50, the blender has effectively paid $1.00 for the gallon of ethanol without the RIN. The higher the price received for the RIN, the lower the effective cost of the renewable fuel. Higher RIN prices therefore enable fuel blenders to market finished fuels that contain renewable fuel components at lower prices by allowing them to purchase renewable fuels for a lower effective price. A fuel blender can choose not to reduce the price of the blended fuel and keep the value associated with the RIN as profit, or they can attempt to increase their market share by passing along the lower effective purchase price of the renewable fuel to the customers in the price of their fuel blends.
Finally, the RFS program, operating through the RIN system should increase the consumption of renewable fuels by ultimately decreasing the cost of renewable fuel blends to consumers relative to the cost of fuel blends that do not contain renewable fuels. RIN prices can be used by blenders to decrease the effective cost of renewable fuel used to create transportation fuel. As more market participants enter the renewable fuel blending and distribution marketplace, and consumers learn to accurately compare the cost of E10 and other higher-level ethanol blends, over some period of time the competition among renewable fuel blenders and distributors should result in a greater portion of the reduced effective cost of renewable fuel blends enabled by the sale of the RIN to be passed on to fuel consumers. Transportation fuel that contains renewable fuels should then reflect these cost reductions relative to transportation fuel containing lower volumes of renewable fuel (or no renewable fuel) in proportion to their renewable fuel content; transportation fuel containing a greater percentage of renewable fuels should be priced lower than transportation fuel containing a lesser percentage of renewable fuel. Motivated by the lower fuel prices for transportation fuel containing greater renewable fuel content (such as E85) relative to fuels containing less renewable fuel (such as E10), consumers will then choose to purchase increasing volumes of renewable fuel. If the price discount for renewable fuels is great enough for a long enough period of time, they may also be motivated to purchase vehicles capable of utilizing fuels containing higher percentages of renewable fuels, such as flexible fuel vehicles.
While economic theory and the illustration in the preceding paragraphs support the idea that RINs can serve as a mechanism to increase the production, distribution, and consumption of renewable fuels, it is important to note that this is dependent on the marketplace working efficiently. In reality, there is a timing component associated with each of the steps outlined above. Renewable fuel producers and investors must see a sustained, profitable market for renewable fuels before they will be willing to invest in the construction of additional fuel production capacity,
This suggests that while the RFS program established by EPA can be effective at increasing the renewable content of transportation fuels over time, it likely cannot substantially increase the available supply of renewable fuels to consumers to the volumes envisioned by Congress in the short term. The program, as Congress clearly indicated, is intended to grow over a period of years. EPA remains committed to promoting renewable fuel production and use in the United States, and we believe the RFS program will be effective in achieving this end. Due to the current state of the renewable fuel production, distribution, and consumption marketplace, we believe the required volumes of renewable fuel must be reduced below the statutory levels in the immediate near term. An approach that provides volume targets that balances aggressive growth with marketplace realities is necessary, is consistent with the statute and Congressional intent, and is the intended outcome of this proposed action.
In 2013 and 2014, the market supplied less renewable fuel to the domestic transportation sector than the statutory targets for those years. While the standards for 2013 were not finalized until August 15, 2013 and the standards for 2014 have not yet been finalized, we do not believe that these delays are the only reasons that actual supply fell short of the statutory volumes. Shortfalls in production and import capability of non-ethanol renewable fuels and constraints on the supply of ethanol to vehicles were also significant factors in not meeting the statutory volume targets, and we expect these factors to continue in 2015 and beyond.
Supplies of BBD and advanced biofuel in 2013 exceeded the statutory requirements for these two categories of renewable fuel by a wide margin. In addition, there was a record high of about 250 million ethanol-equivalent gallons of non-advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel imported in 2013. However, supply of total renewable fuel fell far short of the statutory target of 16.55 billion gallons, reaching only 15.54 billion gallons. The most likely source of additional renewable fuel that could have made it possible to reach a total of 16.55 billion gallons was corn-ethanol. Consuming an additional 1 billion gallons of ethanol would have required consumption of E85 to increase to more than 1.5 billion gallons.
A similar situation existed in 2014, except that both the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes supplied fell short of the statutory volume targets. We recognize that the market may have been influenced by the proposed volume requirements for 2014 specified in the November 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which included proposed reductions from the statutory levels.
Our view that factors other than the November 2013 NPRM were responsible for renewable fuel use being considerably below the statutory volume levels in 2014 is also supported by the fact that the supply of advanced biofuel was insufficient to fill the gap created by the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. Under the statute, cellulosic biofuel was intended to fill 1.75 billion gallons out of the 3.75 billion gallons advanced biofuel applicable volume target. In reality, cellulosic biofuel was only 0.03 billion gallons. The market did increase the supply of other advanced biofuel, but those increases were insufficient to reach the statutory volume target. Specifically, the market supplied 1.63 billion gallons (2.5 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons) of BBD but only 143 million gallons of other advanced biofuel. We expect the gap created by the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel to widen further in 2015 and 2016 as the statutory volume targets quickly increase but the supply potential of the market increases at a slower rate.
Supply of ethanol in higher level ethanol blends, primarily E15 and E85, also fell far short of what would have been needed to reach the statutory volumes of total renewable fuel in 2014. While the total volume of ethanol that could in theory have been consumed in 2014 in the form of E15 and E85 was about 26 billion gallons
Since 2013, the number of FFVs in the fleet and the number of retail stations offering E15 and E85 have grown, and we believe that this growth has been influenced in part by the RFS program. However, this growth has been very modest. Similarly, growth in the ability of the market to supply advanced biofuel other than cellulosic biofuel and BBD has also been modest. Current indications are that growth in all of these areas will continue, and the capability exists for growth to accelerate. However, growth is very unlikely to reach a level that would enable the statutory volume targets to be met in the near term. As a result, we believe that there will continue to be constraints on the total volume of renewable fuel that can be consumed in 2015 and 2016.
The purpose of the RFS program is to ensure that renewable fuels are increasingly used to replace or reduce the use of fossil-fuel based transportation fuel. Ethanol is currently the most widely used renewable fuel for this purpose, with biodiesel being the second most common renewable fuel and other fuels making up a significantly smaller portion of the pool. For non-ethanol renewable fuels, the primary supply constraint at present is the projected shortfall in domestic production or importation of qualifying volumes. For ethanol blends, there are both legal and practical constraints on the amount of ethanol that can be supplied to the vehicles that can use it, notwithstanding the considerable volumes that can be produced and/or imported. Gasoline-powered vehicles and engines have for many years been designed and warranted to use gasoline with ethanol up to 10%, and only blends up to 10% ethanol have historically been legal for use. There are, however, two other avenues through which gasoline with higher concentrations of ethanol can be used. In 2010 and 2011, EPA granted partial waivers that together allow 2001 and later model year light-duty motor vehicles to use gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol.
While there are constraints on expansion of renewable fuel use, markets have a demonstrated ability to overcome constraints with the appropriate policy drivers in place, as discussed in Section II.B.2 above. We believe that the RFS program can drive renewable fuel use, and that it is appropriate to consider the potential of the market to respond to the standards we set when we assess the amount of renewable fuel consumption that can be achieved. Thus, we are proposing volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel that take into account both the constraints on supply and the ability of the RFS program to drive consumption.
Since 2014 has passed, we are proposing to base the applicable volume requirements for that year on the number of RINs supplied in 2014 that are expected to be available for use in complying with the standards. These RINs would include those that were generated for renewable fuel produced or imported in 2014 as recorded in the EPA-Moderated Transaction System (EMTS), minus any RINs that have already been retired for non-compliance reasons or would be expected to be retired to cover exports of renewable fuels.
Actual supply in 2014 is shown in Table II.C.1-1 below. Further details are provided in a memorandum to the docket.
Despite the fact that this proposal is being released well into 2015, we believe that the market can achieve growth this year in comparison to the volumes that were supplied in 2014 (though the rate of growth will not be as high as compared to a scenario under which the market is given the full lead time envisioned by the statute). To this end, we are proposing that the volume requirement for advanced biofuel in 2015 be 2.90 billion gallons. The market has already demonstrated that this level is achievable, having reached 2.92 billion gallons in 2013. Nevertheless, it would be a significant increase from actual supply in 2014 of 2.68 billion gallons and would recognize the lower volumes already supplied to date in 2015. The primary reason that 2014 advanced biofuel volumes were below 2013 volumes is that imports of sugarcane ethanol were 435 million gallons in 2013 but only 64 million gallons in 2014.
A 2015 volume requirement of 2.90 billion gallons for advanced biofuel would be a substantial reduction from the statutory volume target of 5.50 billion gallons. As discussed in Section II.A.4, we believe that a reduction from the statutory volumes is necessary given the limitations on production and import capabilities and constraints imposed by the ability of vehicles and engines to use renewable fuels, particularly ethanol. Growth in advanced biofuel supply from 2014 to 2015 would be about 220 million gallons, substantially less than the growth in the statutory volume target of 1,750 million gallons. However, growth of 220 million gallons from 2014 to 2015 would require the market to respond to the standard we set by supplying more advanced biofuel than would be expected absent the RFS program, and to do so in substantially less than a full calendar year. Indeed without the RFS program, actual supply in 2015 may be no different than it was in 2014. Nevertheless, we believe that 2.90 billion gallons of advanced biofuel is possible given the potential for higher volumes of domestic and imported advanced biofuels, including biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol, among others, and would achieve both the intent of Congress to drive the market forward and also acknowledge the clear limitations on supply that exist. We believe that 2.90 billion gallons represents the maximum amount of advanced biofuel that can be supplied in 2015.
Similarly, for total renewable fuel, we are proposing a reduction in the 2015 statutory volume target of 20.50 billion gallons to 16.30 billion gallons. While the statutory volume target for total renewable fuel cannot be achieved in 2015 as discussed in Section II.A.4, we believe that some growth can be expected in 2015 as the annual volume requirement we set in the RFS program drives expansion in production and import capabilities and infrastructure, and incentivizes more favorable pricing of renewable fuels in the marketplace. Much of the increase from 2014 of about 370 million gallons would result from the increase in the advanced biofuel standard of 2.90 billion gallons discussed above, with the remainder resulting from growth in the use of conventional renewable fuel such as corn ethanol. We believe that the market has already demonstrated that this increment of growth is possible. For instance, growth in total renewable fuel in 2014 was 390 million gallons, and in 2013 it was even higher, despite the fact that in both years the gasoline pool was essentially saturated with ethanol.
We request comment on our proposal for 2.90 billion gallons of advanced biofuel and 16.30 billion gallons of total renewable fuel for 2015. Specifically, we request comment on whether these proposed volumes appropriately reflect constraints on supply resulting from the E10 blendwall and limitations in production and import capabilities, as well as the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set in the time available. Since we recognize that these proposed volumes represent our
We intend to finalize the volume requirements for 2016 by November 30 of this year, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the statute. As a result, obligated parties and other stakeholders in the marketplace will have the full compliance year to respond to the standards that we set for 2016, unlike for 2015 when they will only have part of the year to respond to the standards. We believe, therefore, that the supply of renewable fuels to vehicles can grow more dramatically in 2016 than in 2015. Moreover, as for the 2015 proposal, we believe that this growth should emphasize advanced biofuels, as Congress envisioned that all renewable fuel growth after 2014 would arise from growth in advanced biofuel as opposed to conventional fuels. Advanced biofuels are required to have substantially greater GHG benefits than conventional renewable fuel. As a program designed not only to increase the nation's energy security position but also contribute to efforts to reduce impacts of climate change, we believe that a focus on growth in advanced biofuel is appropriate. However, we also acknowledge that the volume of non-advanced biofuel production and use that has been achieved to date falls short of the volumes that Congress envisioned. Therefore we believe it is appropriate to provide for the continued growth of conventional renewable fuels at this time as well.
We are proposing that the advanced biofuel volume requirement would grow by 500 million gallons in 2016, as compared to 2015, while the remainder (the non-advanced portion) of the total renewable fuel requirement would grow by 600 million gallons in the same timeframe. As a result, the 2016 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel requirements would be 3.40 billion gallons and 17.40 billion gallons, respectively. The corresponding amount of conventional renewable fuel that would be needed would be 14.0 billion gallons. These proposed volumes for both advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel represent substantial reductions from the volumes specified in the statute for 2016. While we do expect the market to respond to the standards we set to drive changes in production and consumption infrastructure as well as more favorable relative pricing, we do not have confidence that those changes could occur fast enough to attain volumes larger than we are proposing for 2016.
While the reductions in the statutory volumes that we are proposing are substantial, the volume requirements that we are proposing for 2016 would nevertheless be significantly larger than any previous volume requirements. The market would need to respond by increasing domestic production and/or imports of renewable fuel, by significantly expanding the infrastructure for distributing and consuming that renewable fuel, and by improving the relative pricing of renewable fuels and conventional transportation fuels at the retail level to ensure that they are attractive to consumers. As described more fully in the next section, we believe that the market has the capability of doing this in 2016 and thus reaching the volumes that we are proposing.
We request comment on our proposal for 3.40 billion gallons of advanced biofuel and 17.40 billion gallons of total renewable fuel for 2016; in particular we request comment on whether these proposed 2016 volumes appropriately reflect constraints on supply resulting from the E10 blendwall and limitations in production and import capabilities, as well as the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set in the time available. Our intent is to set volumes at the maximum level that in our judgment can be supplied to consumers, and we request comment on whether higher or lower volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2016 would be more appropriate. As for 2015, we request comment on whether volumes closer to those we are proposing for 2014 would be more appropriate for 2016, or alternatively whether it would be appropriate to only waive volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel under the cellulosic waiver authority for 2016 without waiving volumes of advanced biofuel or total renewable fuel under the general waiver authority. Finally, while we believe that growth in advanced biofuel should be a priority and have reflected this view in our proposed volume requirements, we also request comment on whether a different relative growth in advanced biofuel and conventional renewable fuel would be appropriate.
In recognition of the fact that the various constraints on supply that exist today were not as significant in years past, the volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel that we are proposing for 2016 would require increases from 2014 levels that, while substantial, are less than the increases that actually occurred in 2013. Moreover, as shown in Figures II.D-1, II.D-2, and II.D-3, the volume requirements in 2015 and 2016 would follow an upward trend consistent with that from 2012-2014, extending the market activities that produced increases in past years to the near future.
We believe the required volumes being proposed for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2015 and 2016 reflect the maximum volumes that can reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed for those years. While we acknowledge that there is considerable judgment involved in identifying the appropriate volumes, we note that each increment is increasingly difficult for the market to accommodate. For instance, the use of ethanol in gasoline increased dramatically between 2000 and 2009, but by 2010 nearly all gasoline contained ethanol. Additional volumes of ethanol use in 2010 and thereafter increased much more slowly as the market approached the E10 blendwall.
This trend suggests that increases in renewable fuel use after 2014 will require more dramatic efforts than in the past. Implementation of the RFS program to date has led to ethanol use that is essentially at the E10 blendwall today. Any further growth in ethanol volumes must entail the use of higher-ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. As the volume requirements we are proposing for 2016 represent significant increases from 2014, we believe it would be unreasonable to expect the market to supply more than the proposed volumes.
In order to demonstrate that the volume requirements that we are proposing are achievable, we investigated a number of scenarios involving different types and sources of renewable fuel. Each of these scenarios differs in terms of the volumes of higher ethanol blends that would be supplied and the relative volumes of such fuels as BBD, imported sugarcane ethanol, corn-ethanol, renewable diesel, and other non-ethanol renewable fuel. While we cannot predict precisely how the market would respond to the standards we are proposing, the fact that at least some of the scenarios fall within the reasonably expected capabilities of the market demonstrates that the volume requirements we are proposing are achievable.
Section II.D.1 below describes the E10 blendwall, while Section II.D.2 uses estimates of ethanol volumes associated with the E10 blendwall as the basis for a number of volume scenarios that include possible volumes of E85 use and the associated need for other renewable fuels to meet the proposed volume requirements. While we have focused this discussion on our proposal for volumes for 2016, a similar pattern would exist with respect to our proposal for 2015 volumes.
In 2007 when Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act with provisions for the current RFS program, the gasoline pool was composed of about half E10 and half E0. Today it is almost entirely E10. While the E0 pool has been shrinking, the pools of E10, E15, and higher level ethanol blends up to E85 have been increasing. In the context of determining the total volume of ethanol that can be supplied to vehicles in 2016, all of these gasoline-ethanol blends could potentially play a role.
For 2016, the portion of the statutory applicable volume for total renewable fuel that may be satisfied with non-advanced biofuel (e.g., conventional renewable fuel, which is primarily ethanol) is 15.0 billion, and this amount is 67% of the total renewable fuel volume target of 22.25 billion gallons specified by the statute for 2016.
In the face of declining gasoline consumption, using greater volumes of ethanol beyond the E10 blendwall is a function of several factors, some legal, and some market-driven. The ability to go beyond the E10 blendwall is a function of actions taken by various fuel market participants, including obligated parties, renewable fuel producers, distributors and marketers, gasoline and diesel retailers, and consumers. In this regard, the market has significant potential flexibility and opportunities, and we believe that it can respond to the standards we set to drive the use of higher ethanol blends, the E10 blendwall notwithstanding.
Another constraint on the volume of ethanol that can be consumed is the demand for E0. While there will undoubtedly be some volumes of E0 in 2016, we expect such volumes to be lower than they were in the past as the market strives to expand consumption of ethanol under the influence of the RFS program. The primary context in which E0 might continue to be used is in recreational marine engines or other small nonroad engines. As described in a memorandum to the docket, we expect that the use of E0 rather than E10 would only reduce the total volume of ethanol that can be consumed by about 13 million gallons out of the 13.69 billion gallons we estimated above.
Efforts to increase the use of ethanol beyond the blendwall is primarily a function of the volume of E85 that is consumed, since volumes of E15 are likely to continue to be small in 2016. Over the last several years, EPA has taken a series of regulatory steps to enable E15 to be sold in the U.S. In 2010 and 2011, EPA issued partial waivers to enable use of E15 in model year 2001 and newer motor vehicles, and in June of 2011, EPA finalized regulations to prevent misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions. However, growth in the number of retail stations offering E15 has been slow—currently there are only about 100 stations offering it. Even if this number grows more quickly in 2015 and 2016 than it did previously, such increases would probably not increase total ethanol consumption by more than 5-10 million gallons in comparison to the use of ethanol in E10.
We have assumed that E10 contains 10.0% denatured ethanol. This is consistent with survey data collected by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers—indicating that the average ethanol content of all gasoline containing at least 5% ethanol is about 9.74%. This estimate is based on the use of ASTM International (ASTM) test method D-5599, which measures only the alcohol portion of the gasoline, not any denaturant that would have been included with the ethanol before it was blended into gasoline. Since the denaturant portion of ethanol is at least 2%, ethanol that is blended into gasoline contains no more than 98% ethanol. When blended into gasoline, therefore, the E98 would result in a gasoline-ethanol blend containing no more than 9.8% pure ethanol, or 10.0% denatured ethanol. Since all RFS ethanol volumes and RINs are also calculated on a denatured ethanol basis, it is thus appropriate to assume 10.0 percent denatured ethanol. Similarly, all references to “ethanol” in this NPRM mean denatured ethanol.
The transportation fuel market is dynamic and complex, and the RFS program is only one of many factors that determine the relative types and amounts of renewable fuel that will be used. Thus, while we set the applicable volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, we cannot precisely predict how the market will choose to meet those requirements. We can, however, delineate a range of possibilities, and doing so provides a means for judging whether the proposed volume requirements are attainable.
For our proposed 2016 total renewable fuel volume requirement of 17.40 billion gallons, there would be about 0.84 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons needed beyond that supplied by E10, the proposed BBD volume requirement of 1.8 billion actual gallons (equivalent to 2.7 billion D4 RINs as described in Section III.D.4), and that portion of the cellulosic biofuel volume which we would expect to be derived from non-ethanol biofuel (see Section IV.E).
• Increase the production and use of BBD above the proposed standard of 1.80 billion gallons
• Increase import and use of sugarcane ethanol and/or domestic production of corn-ethanol, which would result in a corresponding increase in E85
• Increase production and/or imports of conventional (D6) biodiesel and renewable diesel
To illustrate the possible outcomes, we evaluated a number of scenarios with varying levels of E85, imported sugarcane ethanol, advanced biodiesel and other non-ethanol advanced biofuels, and imported conventional biodiesel (likely to be made from palm oil). In doing so we sought to capture the range of possibilities for each individual source. For imported conventional biodiesel we examined volumes up to and slightly higher than the level that was actually imported in 2014—225 million gallons.
The scenarios in the table above are clearly not the only ways that the market could choose to meet the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volume requirements that we are proposing today, but they are illustrative of many ways that it could play out. While we are not in a position to predict how the market would respond to the volume requirements we are proposing today, we believe that the range of possibilities for E85, BBD, and other sources is a clear indication that the standards we are proposing are achievable.
With regard to E85, according to EIA there will be about 16 million FFVs in the in-use fleet in 2016 with a total consumption capacity of about 14 billion gallons of E85.
We also believe that it is possible for the market to exceed 1.8 billion gallons of BBD in 2016. As of 2013, the total production capacity for all registered and unregistered biodiesel facilities was about 3.6 billion gallons,
As Table II.D.2-2 illustrates, the proposed standards could result in the consumption of as much as 2.3 billion gallons of D4 and D6 biodiesel and renewable diesel, representing an increase of about 600 million gallons over the historical high. While this would be a substantial increase, we believe that it is possible. A portion of this increase is likely to be renewable diesel which is indistinguishable from conventional diesel fuel and thus would experience no impediments related to cold temperatures or manufacturer warranties; in both 2013 and 2014, the market supplied about 300 million gallons of renewable diesel. Even if there were no renewable diesel, 2.3 billion gallons of biodiesel would represent less than 4% of the nationwide pool of diesel fuel in 2016. Because essentially all engine manufacturer warranties permit up to 5% biodiesel to be used in their engines, and most medium and heavy-duty engine manufacturers warrant the use of blends up to B20 in their more recent models,
While the scenarios in Table II.D.2-2 are intended to demonstrate the flexibility that the market has to respond to the volumes we are proposing, and indeed many additional scenarios could be generated, we do not believe that all scenarios are equally likely. Certainly some are more likely than others. However, we are not in a position to identify those that are most likely and we are not in a position to predict what will actually occur. In particular, those scenarios that represent reliance on one source without taking advantage of supply from other sources are, we believe, least likely to occur.
The market can be expected to choose the lowest cost path to compliance, but regulated parties may also respond to the standards we set with investments in production, distribution, and consumption infrastructure that is focused on longer term growth. Such investments could result in the selection of higher cost options in the near term, but would enable lower costs in the longer term. Other activities that result in more favorable pricing between renewable fuels and fossil-based fuels will also play a role in determining the actual mix of types and amounts of biofuels used to meet the final standards, and such activities cannot be predicted. Because of these complexities in market dynamics, we do not believe it would be appropriate to identify a specific scenario from Table II.D.2-2 as being most representative of how the market will respond to the proposed volume requirements.
Further, it would be inappropriate to construct new scenarios based on the highest volumes in each category that are shown in Table II.D.2-2 in order to argue for higher volume requirements than we have proposed. Doing so would presume that the specific volumes for each type of renewable fuel, and thus the underlying scenarios, are all equally likely or equally achievable. We have more confidence in the ability of the market to achieve 3.40 billion gallons of advanced biofuel through some combination of different types of renewable fuel than we have in the ability of the market to achieve a specific level of, say, BBD. Thus, for instance, while the highest BBD volume shown in Table II.D.2-2 is 2,131 million gallons, we are not able to say whether this specific level of BBD is one that the market could be expected to achieve in 2016, notwithstanding our belief that such volumes are theoretically possible as described earlier. The same is true for the highest level of E85 shown in Table II.D.2-2 of 600 million gallons, or the highest level of sugarcane ethanol of 433 million gallons. In addition, the consumption of each fuel in Table II.D.2-2 is not independent of the consumption of the other fuels in the table. For example, greater BBD production reduces the likelihood of large imports of palm biodiesel because these two fuels compete against one another. The probability that the upper limits of all sources shown in Table II.D.2-2 could be achieved simultaneously is extremely unlikely.
The range of options available to the market to attain compliance with the proposed volume requirements provide us with confidence that they are achievable. Nevertheless, we recognize that to the extent that the proposed waivers rely on a finding of “inadequate domestic supply”, our objective is to set the volume requirements as precisely as possible at the intersection between an “inadequate supply” and supply that is adequate. Given the complexities of the fuels market, this is a very challenging task, and one that necessarily involves considerable judgment. Based on our assessment of both the current capabilities of the industry and the power of the market to respond to ambitious volume requirements, we believe that our proposed volumes are the best possible estimate of the intersection between “inadequate supply” and supply that is adequate.
Because the standards that we are proposing would compel the market to supply higher volumes than would occur in the absence of an RFS program and indeed higher volumes than are currently being supplied, RIN prices are likely to be higher than historical levels. RIN price increases are an expected market response to an increased renewable fuel mandate that is pushing volumes beyond levels that the market would otherwise use. Furthermore, high RIN prices help to promote growth in renewable fuel supply. For instance, higher RIN prices would likely increase the incentive to import renewable fuels. Both ethanol and biodiesel/renewable diesel worldwide could be diverted from their current markets given a sufficiently high RIN price. High RIN prices can also provide the potential for reductions in the retail selling prices of E85 and E15 if distributors, blenders, and retailers pass the value of those RINs to end users. Finally, sustained high RIN prices create the incentives needed to spur investment in new technologies and production capacity, a critical need if the market is going to continue expanding in future years according to Congress' intentions.
Given the variability in potential compliance scenarios that exists, we believe that regulated parties have the ability to meet the proposed standards for 2016. Stakeholders have the ability to overcome market barriers to expanded use of renewable fuels, making the standards we are proposing today attainable. Potential actions that stakeholders can take include:
Finally, the RFS program contains two other provisions that provide additional flexibility to obligated parties in the event that they choose not to invest in increasing the supply of renewable fuels. The first is the option to carry a deficit into 2017. This option would provide the industry additional time to increase supply. The second available flexibility is carryover RINs, discussed in more detail in Section II.F.
Neither the statute nor EPA regulations specify how or whether EPA should consider the availability of carryover RINs in exercising its waiver authorities either in the standard-setting context or in response to petitions for a waiver during a compliance year. As described in the 2007 rulemaking establishing the RFS regulatory program,
The potential role of carryover RINs in minimizing waivers of the statutory applicable volume targets was first addressed in the context of the rule establishing RFS standards for 2013. In the context of that rulemaking, we estimated that 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol would be needed to meet the total statutory total renewable fuel volume target of 16.55 billion gallons, assuming that no BBD was produced above the 1.28 billion gallons required by the BBD standard. We also determined that the total amount of ethanol the market could absorb as E10 in 2013 was 13.1 billion gallons, leaving a potential gap of 1.4 billion gallons. We then described how BBD production in excess of the BBD standard, increased production of other non-ethanol renewable fuels, and use of E85 could contribute to the needed gallons. We also pointed out that about 2.6 billion carryover RINs would be available in 2013, which was more than enough to cover the potential gap of 1.4 billion gallons if other approaches to compliance were not realized. We decided, therefore, that a waiver of the statutory applicable volume of total renewable fuel was not needed in 2013.
We are not now in a position to confidently assess the volume of carryover RINs currently available, since obligated parties and exporters have not yet submitted their compliance demonstrations for 2013. However, based on the number of RINs generated in 2013 and available data on renewable fuel exports and RIN retirements in 2013, we estimate that 800 million carryover RINs will need to be used for compliance with the 2013 RFS standards. This will reduce the bank of carryover RINs to approximately 1.8 billion RINs. For purposes of our proposed volume requirements for 2014, 2015, and 2016, we considered whether some specific number of carryover RINs below the current level of 1.8 billion would be sufficient for the critical compliance flexibility, market liquidity, and program buffer functions served by carryover RINs, such that we could effectively require some use of carryover RINs by setting applicable volume requirements at levels higher than could be achieved through actual renewable fuel blending and use in these years.
We believe, however, that it would be prudent, and would advance the long-term objectives of the Act, not to set standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 so as to intentionally draw down the current bank of carryover RINs. We believe that the availability of this full volume of carryover RINs will be important for both obligated parties and the RFS program itself in addressing significant future uncertainties and challenges, particularly since compliance with the proposed advanced and total renewable fuel standards is expected to require significant progress in growing and sustaining production of advanced biofuels and using ethanol in quantities that exceed the E10 blendwall.
Although the issue in this proposed rulemaking is whether to waive statutory applicable volumes in the context of establishing new standards, we note that the availability of carryover RINs is an important factor in deciding whether to waive standards already in effect. Each year, obligated parties make significant efforts to comply with RFS requirements, and participants in the renewable fuels market make significant efforts to supply the renewable fuels needed for compliance. Changing those requirements during the compliance year to address unforeseen supply disruptions or for other reasons would be disruptive to businesses and therefore to the long-term objectives of the RFS program to provide incentives to industry to increase the production and use of renewable fuels. Preserving the current bank of carryover RINs at this time will reduce the risk that waivers may be needed after the 2014, 2015 and 2016 standards are in place to address unforeseen circumstances.
In addition, the RIN system was developed in part to implement the statutory requirement for obligated parties to earn “credits” for overcompliance that could be used in another year or sold to others. The RFS standards are a mandate with serious ramifications to obligated parties that fail to comply. As intended by Congress, carryover RINs help provide compliance flexibility. We appreciate that obligated parties make individual decisions about whether and how many RINs to acquire for their compliance management purposes, and that a decision by EPA to effectively “draw down” their bank of carryover RINs in calculating future volume requirements may decrease their compliance flexibility, increase their risk of noncompliance, and affect their incentives to build-up carryover RIN balances. We understand that obligated parties in many instances acquire RINs for carryover to provide just that kind of flexibility, and that assuming use of carryover RINs in setting the RFS standards may in the future discourage that kind of responsible behavior.
Finally, we appreciate that with the increasing renewable fuel volume targets established in the Act for the future, combined with the projected decreasing use of gasoline and diesel fuel resulting from more stringent vehicle emission and mileage requirements, the ability of obligated parties to increase the bank of carryover RINs through additional overcompliance in the future will be much more difficult. Therefore, any draw-down in the bank of carryover RINs required through setting volume requirements at levels higher than can be achieved through actual renewable fuel use could not likely be reversed in the future. Given the importance of carryover RINs noted above, this consideration suggests that a deliberate draw-down of the RIN bank would not be prudent.
For all of the reasons noted above, EPA is not proposing to set renewable fuel volume requirements at levels that would envision the draw-down in the bank of carryover RINs. We welcome comments on this analysis and thoughts on how EPA should consider carryover RINs in establishing renewable fuel volume requirements for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
In the following sections we provide cost estimates for three illustrative scenarios—one, if the entire change in the advanced standards is met with soybean oil BBD; two, if the entire change in the advanced standards is met with sugarcane ethanol from Brazil; and three, if the entire change in the conventional standards (
A number of different scenarios could be considered the “baseline” for the assessment of the costs of this rule. For the purposes of showing illustrative overall costs of this rulemaking, we are proposing to use the preceding year's standard as the baseline (e.g., the baseline for the 2016 advanced standard is the proposed applicable 2015 advanced standard, etc.), an approach consistent with past practices.
The 2014 standards were not finalized in 2014 so it is difficult to estimate what their costs may have been. Market participants may have anticipated a final 2014 standard would require higher levels of biofuels than the market would provide in the absence of the standard, which would contribute to the positive RIN prices witnessed in 2014. In contrast, the 2014 standards being proposed in this rulemaking represent reductions in both the advanced and conventional volumes compared to the 2013 standards, suggesting a reduction in costs for this proposed 2014 rule compared to the 2013 standards. Finally, the 2014 standards being proposed in this rulemaking are based on actual production levels in 2014, suggesting that the 2014 standards we are proposing are what would have happened in the marketplace absent a rulemaking. Given the complexity of this issue, we have not attempted to estimate the costs of the 2014 standards. Therefore, we only provide illustrative costs for the 2015 and 2016 advanced biofuel standards and total renewable fuel standards.
Because we are focusing on the wholesale level in each of the three scenarios, these comparisons do not consider taxes, retail margins, and any other costs or transfers that occur at or after the point of blending (
For our first scenario, we consider the costs of soybean-based biodiesel to meet the entire change in the advanced standards. The proposed 2014 standard is being set at the actual level of advanced biofuels produced in 2014, 2.68 billion gallons. The total advanced biofuel volumes are being proposed for 2015 at 2.90 billion gallons and 3.40 billion gallons in 2016. Comparing the difference in costs between biomass-based diesel and petroleum-based diesel, we estimate a cost difference that ranges from $1.48 to $1.56/EEG in 2015 and from $1.45 to $2.09/EEG in 2016. Multiplying the per gallon cost estimates by the volume of fuel displaced by the advanced standard, on an energy equivalent basis, results in an overall annual cost of $218 to $229 million in 2015 and $483 to $697 million in 2016.
For our second scenario, we provide illustrative estimates of what the potential costs might be if all additional volumes used to meet the 2015 and 2016 advanced biofuel standards above the previous year's advanced biofuel standard are met with imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. Comparing the difference in costs between sugarcane ethanol and the wholesale gasoline price on a per gallon basis, we estimate cost differences that range from $1.04 to $2.80/EEG in 2015 and from $0.85 to $2.61/EEG in 2016. Taking the difference in per gallon costs for sugarcane ethanol and the wholesale gasoline price and multiplying that by the volume of petroleum displaced on an energy equivalent basis from the advanced standard results in an overall estimated annual cost of $228 to $615 million for 2015 and $424 to $1,303 million for 2016.
For the third scenario, we assess the difference in cost associated with a change in the implied volumes available for conventional (
An alternative way of looking at the illustrative costs in 2016, given the fact that this is a three year rule and the 2015 standards may change, is to consider a volume change relative to the 2014 proposed standard. The cost estimate for meeting the 2016 standard would range from $695 to $1,003 million if the entire advanced standard were to be met with soybean-based diesel. The cost estimates would range from $610 to $1,877 million if the entire advanced standard were met with sugarcane ethanol. The cost estimate for meeting the entire conventional standard in 2016 with corn ethanol would range from $435 to $676 million.
The short time frame provided for the annual renewable fuel rule process does not allow sufficient time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 2015 and 2016 standards and the statute does not require it. Moreover, as discussed in the proposed rule establishing the 1.28 billion gallon requirement for BBD in 2013, the costs and benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the program is fully mature in 2022.
In this section we discuss the proposed biomass-based diesel (BBD) applicable volumes for 2014 through 2017. It is important to note that the BBD volume requirement is nested within both the advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel volume requirements; so that any “excess” BBD produced beyond the mandated BBD volume can be used to satisfy both these other applicable volume requirements. Therefore, in assessing what is the appropriate applicable BBD volume for 2014-2017, it is important to consider not only the volume for BBD, which effectively guarantees a minimum amount that will be produced, but also the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements, which historically have played a significant role in determining demand for BBD as well.
In proposing an applicable volume for 2017 we are addressing the volume requirement but not the percent standards, in order to satisfy a statutory requirement that when EPA sets the applicable volumes in the absence of a statutory volume target, that we do so no later than 14 months before the first year for which such applicable volume will apply.
The statute establishes applicable volume targets for years through 2022 for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. For BBD, applicable volume targets are specified in the statute only through 2012. For years after those for which applicable volumes are specified in the statute, EPA is required under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) to determine the applicable volume, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture, based on a review of the implementation of the program during calendar years for which the statute specifies the applicable volumes and an analysis of the following factors:
1. The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and water supply;
2. The impact of renewable fuels on the energy security of the United States;
3. The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels in each category (cellulosic biofuel and BBD);
4. The impact of renewable fuels on the infrastructure of the United States, including deliverability of materials, goods, and products other than renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel;
5. The impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods; and
6. The impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the price and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices.
Due to the delayed issuance of the major regulatory revisions necessary to implement changes enacted through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EPA established a 2010 BBD standard that reflected volume requirements for both 2009 and 2010, and allowed RINs generated as early as 2008 to be used for compliance with that standard. Given the complexity associated with the 2010 BBD standard, we begin our review of implementation of the program with the 2011 compliance year. Reviewing the implementation of the BBD standards in previous years is required by the CAA, and also provides insight into the capabilities of the BBD industry to produce and import fuel. It also helps us to understand what factors, beyond the BBD standard, may incentivize the production and import of BBD. The number of BBD RINs generated, along with the number of RINs retired for reasons other than compliance with the annual BBD standards, are shown in Table III.B-1 below.
While total BBD volume produced and imported in 2013 was 1.79 billion gallons (2.74 billion BBD RINs), it is also instructive to review the data on volumes that were produced domestically, imported, exported, and retired for reasons other than compliance. Total domestic production of BBD was 1.45 billion gallons (2.19 billion RINs), while imports resulted in an additional 0.34 billion gallons (0.55 billion RINs).
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual import data for BBD (Biodiesel and Renewable diesel countries contributing to BBD imports (million gallons) were Argentina = 132, Aruba = 6, Australia = 1, Belgium = 5, Canada = 45, Finland = 36, Germany = 61, Indonesia = 52, Netherlands = 8, Norway = 9, South Korea = 20, Panama = 3, Singapore = 164, Spain = 4, Taiwan = 1. (See
Note that not all of the imported volumes generated BBD (D4) RINs. Some of this volume may have generated Renewable Fuel (D6) RINs or no RINs at all.
For 2014 we are proposing to base the applicable volume requirements on the number of RINs supplied in 2014. We propose to define supply for 2014 as the number of BBD RINs that were available for compliance in 2014. Supply would thus include RINs that were generated for renewable fuel produced or imported in 2014 as recorded in the EMTS, minus any RINs that have already been retired or would be expected to be retired to cover exports of renewable fuels or for any purpose other than compliance. RINs that have already been retired for such circumstances as RINs being invalid, spills, corrected and replaced RINs, etc. are recorded in EMTS on an ongoing basis. However, complete information on RINs that are retired to cover exports of renewable fuel is not available through EMTS until after the compliance demonstration deadline for a given calendar year has passed. Since compliance cannot occur until the standards are set, we propose to use biodiesel export information from EIA in 2014 to estimate the number of 2014 BBD RINs that will be retired to satisfy obligations associated with exported BBD.
Actual supply of BBD in 2014 is shown in Table III.C-1 below. Further details are provided in a memorandum to the docket.
The statute requires that, in determining the applicable volume of BBD, we review the implementation of the program in previous years. Based on the fact that the industry made more BBD available in 2011 and 2013 than volume requirements for those years, we conclude that the BBD standard is not the sole driver for the amount of BBD produced or imported into the United
However, we recognize that in addition to being a component of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, Congress also intended that BBD have its own specific standard. Given that the statute requires annual increases in advanced biofuel through 2022, it may be appropriate for BBD to play an increasing role in supplying advanced biofuels to the market, especially in light of the fact that BBD does not contribute to the E10 blendwall. This proposal seeks to balance the goals of supporting the BBD industry and incentivizing the production of non-BBD advanced biofuels by providing a guaranteed, increasing market for BBD and allowing all advanced biofuels to compete for market share within the advanced biofuel category. In doing so we have considered the ability of the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards to incentivize an increasing supply of BBD, the implementation of the RFS program to date, and the statutory factors listed in CAA 211(o)(2)(B) (discussed in further detail in Section III.E below).
The BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards. This means that when an obligated party retires a BBD RIN (D4) to satisfy their obligation, this RIN also counts towards meeting their advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligations. It also means that obligated parties may use BBD RINs in excess of their BBD obligations to satisfy their advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligations. Higher advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards, therefore, can create demand for BBD if there is an insufficient supply of other advanced or conventional renewable fuels to satisfy the standards, or if BBD RINs can be acquired at or below the price of other advanced or conventional biofuel RINs.
In reviewing the implementation of the RFS program to date, it is apparent that the advanced and/or total renewable fuel requirements were in fact helping to provide a market for volumes of biodiesel above the BBD standard. Table III.D.1-1 below shows the number of BBD RINs generated and available for use towards demonstrating compliance
The prices paid for advanced biofuel and BBD RINs also support the theory that advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel standards provided sufficient incentive for additional biodiesel production and import. Because the BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards, we would expect the price of BBD RINs to exceed that of advanced and renewable RINs. If, however, BBD RINs are being used by obligated parties to satisfy their advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel obligations, above and beyond the BBD standard, we would expect the price of renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and BBD RINs to converge. When examining RIN prices data from 2011 through 2014, shown in Figure III.D.1-1 below, we see that until January 2013 there is a consistent price differential between the price of BBD and the relatively cheaper advanced biofuel and renewable fuel RINs. Beginning in 2013 the price of BBD RINs and advanced biofuel RINs converge, and remain at a similar price throughout 2014. This is more evidence that suggests that the advanced biofuel standard and/or total renewable fuel standard is capable of incentivizing increased production and importation of BBD beyond the BBD standard, and that it in fact operated in this manner in 2013 and 2014.
Another implication of the fact that the BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel standard is that, for any given advanced biofuel standard, the higher the BBD standard is, the lower the opportunity for other non-BBD fuels to compete for market share within the context of the advanced biofuel standard. The statutory volumes of renewable fuel established by Congress in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) allow for an opportunity for other advanced biofuels (advanced biofuels that do not qualify as cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel standard after the cellulosic biofuel and BBD standards have been met. This unspecified advanced biofuel volume starts at 0.25 billion gallons in 2013 and grows to 3.5 billion gallons in 2022. It is, however, heavily dependent on EPA actions. Increasing the BBD standard above 1 billion gallons, as we did in 2013, reduces the potential market for other advanced biofuels to contribute towards meeting the advanced biofuel standard. Conversely, reducing the cellulosic biofuel standard while simultaneously maintaining the advanced biofuel standard (or reducing it by a lesser amount), as we have done each year since 2010, increases the potential market for other advanced biofuels.
Both BBD and other advanced biofuels achieve estimated greenhouse gas reductions of at least 50% relative to the petroleum fuels they replace. Increasing the guaranteed market for BBD, rather than allowing excess BBD to compete for market share with other advanced biofuels within the advanced biofuel standard, would likely reduce competition and thus result in increased costs associated with the RFS program with no additional GHG reductions. It will also have a negative impact on investment in the development and deployment of other advanced biofuels, as these fuels will have a lower potential market if the BBD standard is increased. The long term success of the RFS program will depend on the growth in a variety of advanced biofuels. The standards we set today must therefore provide an incentive for the ongoing research, development, and commercialization of a variety of types of advanced biofuels beyond just BBD. We note again, however, that allowing for a greater use of other advanced biofuels by setting a lower BBD standard does not limit the amount of BBD that may be used towards satisfying the advanced biofuel standard. If BBD can be supplied at a lower cost than other advanced biofuels it can—and we expect would—be used to satisfy the majority or even all of the unspecified volume of advanced biofuels. Allowing for a larger portion of the advanced biofuel standard to be unspecified, by setting a lower BBD standard, maintains an incentive for the development and deployment of other advanced biofuels, while at the same time allowing a level of competition that can reduce compliance costs while also allowing growth in the supply of BBD and maintaining the greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved by the use of advanced biofuels in the RFS program. We believe these are important considerations in determining the required BBD volumes in the 2015-2017 time period, as well as in future years.
While the ability of the advanced and total renewable fuel standards to incentivize increasing production of BBD and the desire to allow other advanced biofuels to compete with BBD for market share under the advanced standard suggest that a flat or even decreasing BBD volume requirement may be the optimal solution, these are not the only considerations. Despite many of these same issues being present
During the development of the 2013 standards rulemaking, we were also concerned that the cellulosic biofuel standard, also nested within the advanced biofuel requirement, was lagging significantly behind the 1 billion gallon statutory volume target. The shortfall in cellulosic biofuel volume meant that either other sources of advanced biofuel would be necessary to fulfill the specified volumes in the statute for the advanced biofuel standard, or EPA would need to waive a portion of the advanced biofuel standard. It is in this context that EPA determined that raising the BBD requirement to 1.28 billion gallons was appropriate. Most importantly, an applicable volume requirement of 1.28 billion gallons was expected to encourage continued investment and innovation in the BBD industry, providing necessary assurances to the industry to increase production for 2013 while also serving the long term goal of the RFS statute to increase volumes of advanced biofuels over time.
There are also advantages to increasing the BBD standard in order to help provide stability to the BBD industry. This industry is currently the single largest contributor to the advanced biofuel pool, one that to date has been largely responsible for providing the growth in advanced biofuels envisioned by Congress. Nevertheless, there has been variability in the number of biodiesel facilities in production over the last few years, as well as the percent utilization of individual facilities, both of which contribute uncertainty in the rate of production in the near future, and which can be mitigated to some degree with an increase in the BBD applicable volume. Increasing the BBD standard should help to provide market conditions that allow these BBD production facilities to operate with greater certainty. This result would be consistent with the goals of the Act to increase the production and use of renewable fuels.
With these considerations in mind, as well as our analysis of the factors specified in the statute and described below, and in coordination with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we are proposing to increase the applicable volume of BBD to 1.70 billion gallons for 2015, and to further increase the BBD volume requirement by 0.1 billion gallons in 2016 and 2017, respectively. We believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between providing a market environment where other advanced biofuels can compete, and achieving the benefits associated with increasing the required volume of BBD. Given our proposed volumes for advanced biofuel in these years, setting the BBD standard in this manner continues to allow a considerable portion of the advanced biofuel volume to be satisfied by either additional gallons of BBD or by other unspecified types of qualifying advanced biofuels (see Table III.D.4-1 below). While we have not yet determined the applicable volume of advanced biofuel for 2017, we anticipate the continued growth in the advanced biofuel standard such that the advanced biofuel standard will provide an incentive for both increasing volumes of BBD and other advanced biofuels. We believe maintaining this unspecified or other advanced biofuel volume will provide the incentive for development and growth in other types of advanced biofuels. At the same time, allowing the portion of the advanced biofuel volume requirement that is dedicated to BBD to increase concurrently with the increase in the overall advanced biofuel volume requirement will contribute to market certainty for both the BBD industry and the renewable fuels program in general.
In proposing these standards for BBD for 2015-2017 EPA has taken into account the statutory requirements found in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), including coordination with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, review of the implementation of the renewable fuels program to date, and analysis of the statutory factors specified in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). Of particular relevance in our review of the implementation of the renewable fuels program to date were the circumstances and context that led us to increase the BBD standard from 1.0 billion gallons in 2012 to 1.28 billion gallons for 2013, and the biofuel industry's successful performance in 2013. We have also reviewed the statutory factors in the context that the BBD volume requirement is nested within the advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels volume requirements. This discussion of the statutory factors is found in Section III.E., below.
In deciding to propose an applicable volume of 1.70 billion gallons of BBD for 2015, with annual increases of 0.10 billion gallons for 2016 and 2017, we
Raising the guaranteed BBD volume beyond the proposed volumes to a volume that approaches the maximum possible supply of BBD could result in a less competitive advanced biofuels market, increasing RIN prices, and a less efficient market-driven renewable fuels program. Our decision today to propose increasing the BBD volume in 2015-2017 by 100 million gallons per year would not be expected to lead to such adverse result. We believe that the proposed increases for 2015-2017 will both contribute to market stability for the renewable fuels program and continue to promote a growing and competitive advanced biofuels marketplace, one which encourages the growth and development of diverse biofuels along with additional volumes of BBD beyond the volumes required by the BBD standard. We request comment on our proposal for increasing the BBD applicable volumes in 2015-2017 and whether higher or lower volume requirements for BBD for 2015-2017 would be more appropriate.
In this section we discuss our considerations of the statutory factors set forth in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). As discussed earlier in Section III.D.1, the BBD volume requirement is nested within both the advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel volume requirements; so that any BBD produced beyond the mandated BBD volume can be used to satisfy both these other applicable volume requirements. The result is that in considering the statutory factors when setting the biomass-based standard we must consider the potential impacts of increasing BBD in comparison to other advanced biofuels,
EPA's primary assessment of the statutory factors for years 2015 through 2016 is that because the proposed advanced biofuel volume requirements for 2015-2016 reflect the maximum volumes of all advanced biofuels (including BBD) that can reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed, and because the BBD requirement is nested within the advanced biofuel volume requirement, we expect that the advanced biofuel volume requirement will determine the level of BBD production and import; the same volume of BBD will be produced and imported regardless of the BBD applicable volumes that we require for 2015-2016. This assessment is based in part on our review of implementation of the RFS program to date, as discussed in Sections III. B and D. Since our decision on the BBD applicable volumes for 2015-2016 is not expected to impact the volume of BBD produced and imported during this time period, we do not expect our decision to result in a difference in any of the factors we are required to evaluate pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI), with the exception, that in considering statutory factor 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(III), we believe that our decision on the level of the nested BBD volume requirement can have an impact on the future development and marketing of non-BBD advanced biofuels and can also be seen as sending a supportive or non-supportive signal to potential investors in BBD.
Similarly for 2017, even though we are proposing only the 2017 BBD requirement at this time and not the 2017 advanced biofuel requirement, we believe this same primary assessment is appropriate since, as in previous years, the 2017 advanced biofuel requirement will be set to reflect the maximum volumes of all advanced biofuels (including BBD) that can reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed for 2017, and it is the advanced standard that can be expected to drive BBD production and use.
As an additional supplementary assessment, we have considered the potential impacts of modifying the applicable volume of BBD from the proposed levels of 1.70 billion gallons in 2015, 1.80 billion gallons in 2016, and 1.90 billion gallons in 2017, based on the assumption that in guaranteeing BBD volumes at any given level there could be greater use of BBD and a corresponding decrease in the use of other types of advanced biofuels for years 2015-2017. However, setting a higher or lower BBD volume requirement than the levels proposed would only be expected to impact BBD volumes on the margin, protecting to varying degrees this advanced biofuel from being outcompeted by other advanced biofuels. This assessment analyzes all of the statutory factors, and is described in a memorandum to the docket.
Given the fact that the 2014 compliance year has passed, we believe that our action in setting the 2014 BBD volume requirement will result in no real-world impacts, including no impacts with respect to the factors listed under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). For example, there is no longer any ability for other advanced biofuels to compete with BBD for a greater share of the advanced biofuel pool in 2014, so there would be no marginal benefit in terms of incentivizing production of such fuels in setting a lower volume requirement than the volume of BBD that was actually produced and imported and available for compliance in 2014. Setting the applicable volume at a higher level would require a draw-down in the bank of carryover RINs, which EPA does not consider prudent for the reasons discussed in Section II.E. of this preamble. In light of these considerations, we propose to establish the 2014 applicable volume as equal to the volume actually produced and imported, which is available for compliance.
In the past several years the cellulosic biofuel industry has made significant progress towards commercial scale production. Quad County Corn Processors produced the first cellulosic biofuel RINs from corn kernel fiber at a corn ethanol plant in 2014. In addition, in 2014 two large scale cellulosic ethanol facilities owned and operated by the experienced biofuel production companies Abengoa and Poet completed construction. EPA also determined that compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced from biogas from landfills, municipal waste-water treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated municipal solid waste (MSW) digesters is eligible to generate cellulosic RINs. This determination lead to a significant increase in cellulosic RIN generation, as fuel that previously had been qualified to generate advanced biofuel RINs began to be used to generate cellulosic RINs. Efforts continue to be made at facilities across the country to reduce both capital costs and production costs associated with cellulosic biofuel production through technology advances and the development of best practices gained through operating experience. EPA also continues to support the ongoing development of cellulosic biofuels through actions such as the evaluation of new pathways with the potential to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs.
In order to project the volume of cellulosic biofuel production in 2015 and 2016 we considered data reported to EPA through the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) and information we collected regarding individual facilities that have produced or have the potential to produce qualifying volumes for consumption as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S. in 2014, 2015, or 2016. New cellulosic biofuel production facilities projected to be brought online in the United States over the next few years would significantly increase the production capacity of the cellulosic industry. Operational experience gained at the first few commercial scale cellulosic biofuel production facilities should also lead to increasing production of cellulosic biofuel from existing production facilities. The following section discusses the companies the EPA reviewed in the process of projecting qualifying cellulosic biofuel production in the United States in 2015 and 2016. Information on these companies forms the basis for our production projections of cellulosic biofuel that will be produced for use as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the United States in these years (see Table IV-1 below). We request comment on the projected volumes of cellulosic biofuel production for each of these years, as well as the methodology used to project these volumes.
The volumes of renewable fuel to be used under the RFS program each year (absent an adjustment or waiver by EPA) are specified in CAA section 211(o)(2). The volumes of cellulosic biofuel specified in the statute for 2014, 2015, and 2016 are shown in Table IV.A-1 below. The statute provides that if EPA determines, based on EIA's estimate, that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production in a given year is less than the statutory volume, then EPA is to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel to the projected volume available during that calendar year.
In addition, if EPA reduces the required volume of cellulosic biofuel below the level specified in the statute, the Act also indicates that we may reduce the applicable volumes of advanced biofuels and total renewable fuel by the same or a lesser volume, and we are required to make cellulosic waiver credits available. Our consideration of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 volume requirements for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuel is presented in Section II.
In order to project cellulosic biofuel production for 2015 and 2016 we have tracked the progress of several dozen potential cellulosic biofuel production facilities. As we did in establishing the 2013 annual volumes, we have focused on facilities with the potential to produce commercial volumes of cellulosic biofuel rather than small R&D or pilot-scale facilities. We did so because the larger commercial-scale facilities are much more likely to generate RINs for the fuel they produce and the volumes they produce will have a far greater impact on the cellulosic biofuel standards for 2015—2016. From this list of facilities we used information from EMTS and publically available information, and information provided by representatives of potential cellulosic biofuel producers, to make a determination of which facilities are the most likely candidates to produce cellulosic biofuel and generate cellulosic biofuel RINs in 2015 and 2016. Each of these companies was investigated further in order to determine the current status of its facilities and its likely cellulosic biofuel production and RIN generation volumes for 2015 and 2016. Both in our discussions with representatives of each company
EPA is proposing to use a slightly different methodology for projecting the available volume of cellulosic biofuel for each of the three years. Our approach to each of these years can
Our approach for each of the three years is discussed in more detail in Sections IV.D-IV.F below. The remainder of this Section discusses the current status of the companies and facilities EPA expects may be in a position to produce commercial scale volumes of cellulosic biofuel by the end of 2016. This information forms the basis for our proposed standards for cellulosic biofuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
There are a number of companies and facilities
In addition to the potential sources of cellulosic biofuel located in the United States, there are several foreign cellulosic biofuel companies that may produce cellulosic biofuel in 2015 or 2016. These include facilities owned and operated by Beta Renewables, Enerkem, GranBio, and Raizen. All of these facilities use fuel production pathways that have been approved by EPA for cellulosic RIN generation provided eligible sources of renewable feedstock are used. These companies would therefore be eligible to register these facilities under the RFS program and generate RINs for any qualifying fuel imported into the United States. While these facilities may be able to generate RINs for any volumes of cellulosic biofuel they import into the United States, demand for the cellulosic biofuels they produce is expected to be high in local markets. EPA is charged with projecting the volume of cellulosic biofuel that will be produced or imported into the United States. Based on information available to EPA at the time of this proposed rulemaking, including the lack of cellulosic biofuel imports to date, we do not believe cellulosic biofuel will be imported into the United States from foreign cellulosic biofuel production facilities other than the Ensyn facility in Ontario, Canada. As such, production volumes from foreign facilities (with the exception of Ensyn) have not been included in our projection of potentially available volume for 2014-2016. EPA plans to continue to monitor the progress of foreign cellulosic biofuel facilities and may include volumes from foreign facilities in future rulemakings if appropriate and supported by new information.
The information we have gathered on cellulosic biofuel producers, described above, along with the data collected through EMTS forms the basis for our projected volumes of cellulosic biofuel production for each facility in 2015 and 2016. As in 2013, we have focused on commercial scale cellulosic biofuel production facilities. This focus is appropriate, as the volume of cellulosic biofuel produced from R&D and pilot scale facilities is quite small in relation to that expected from the commercial scale facilities. R&D and demonstration scale facilities have also generally not generated RINs for any fuel they have produced.
By 2016 there are a number of cellulosic biofuel production facilities that have the potential to produce fuel at commercial scale. Each of these facilities is discussed in a memorandum to the docket,
EPA is charged with projecting the available volume of cellulosic biofuel for each year, and to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel to the level projected to be available for years in which the projected available volume falls below the cellulosic biofuel applicable volume target specified in the CAA 211(o)(2). EPA believes that for any historical time period, the required projection is best calculated as the sum of the cellulosic biofuel RINs (D3) and the cellulosic diesel RINs (D7) generated, adjusted for RINs that are retired for purposes other than compliance with the annual standards. EPA publishes the number of cellulosic biofuel and cellulosic diesel RINs generated on a month by month basis on our Web site.
To project the volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2015, EPA has relied on a combination of production information reported to EPA through EMTS for months in which we have data available and facility or company specific estimates of likely production for months for which EMTS data is not available. For months in which information on the production of cellulosic biofuel is available we have used the methodology discussed in Section IV.C, subtracting the number of RINs retired for reasons other than compliance in 2015 from the total number of RINs produced in 2015 that are eligible to be used towards satisfying the cellulosic biofuel standard (D3 and D7 RINs). We have again assumed that no cellulosic biofuel was exported in the first three months of 2015. This data is shown in Table IV.D-1 below.
For months in which information is unavailable EPA has updated our projection methodology from the methodology used in previous rulemakings and our proposed rule for 2014. Our projection methodology starts with estimating a range of potential production volumes for each company for the portion of 2015 where production data is not available.
In establishing a range for each company, we began by determining an appropriate low end of the range. The low end of the range for each company is designed to represent the volume of fuel EPA believes each company would produce if they are unable to begin fuel production on their expected start-up date and/or if they experience challenges that result in reduced production volumes or a longer than expected ramp-up period. In this proposal EPA has set the low end of the production range for each company based on the volume of RIN-generating cellulosic biofuel the company has produced in the most recent 12 months for which data is available.
This approach provides us with an objective methodology for calculating the low end of the potential production range for each company that we believe is appropriate in light of the history of start-up delays and missed production targets in the cellulosic biofuel industry. If a company has not yet begun producing RIN-generating volumes of cellulosic biofuel, our experience suggests that they may experience challenges in progressing toward commercial-scale production that would result in the delay of the production of cellulosic biofuel. We acknowledge that in the majority of cases cellulosic companies that have begun producing fuel and are currently in the start-up and ramp-up phases of production will increase their production of cellulosic biofuel from one year to the next as they work towards production rates at or near the facility capacity. Fuel production by these companies may, however, be interrupted, either intentionally or unexpectedly, and these interruptions may hinder the ability of these companies to increase biofuel production year over year. We will account for the likelihood of increasing production in developing the high end of each company's production range. Finally, there may be cases in which information is available that suggests a company is unlikely to meet the production volumes achieved in the previous 12 months for which data is available, due to technical, financial, or legal difficulties. We do not believe this is the case with any of the companies projected to produce cellulosic biofuel in 2015.
It is important to note that the low end of the range does not necessarily represent a worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario for any of these facilities for the months in which we are projecting production is no production, as it is always possible that extreme circumstances or natural disasters may result in extended delays, facility damages, or liquidation. While not denying such a possibility, we nevertheless believe it is generally appropriate to use the production over the previous 12 months as the low end of the range, with exceptions made where available information indicates that such production may be unlikely. In situations where a company has not
To determine the high end of the range of expected production volumes for each company we considered a variety of factors, including the expected start-up date and ramp-up period, facility capacity, and fuel off-take agreements. As a starting point, EPA calculated a production volume using the expected start-up date, facility capacity, and a benchmark of a six-month straight-line ramp-up period representing an optimistic ramp-up scenario.
The inability of cellulosic biofuel producers in previous years to achieve their projection production targets does not provide a sufficient basis for completely discounting production of cellulosic biofuel in future years, either for these same facilities that were previously unable to achieve their target projections or from new facilities expected to start-up in 2015 or 2016. Each of these companies is an individual case, with their own production technologies, construction and operations staffs, and financial situations, and we do not believe it is appropriate to dismiss all future potential cellulosic biofuel production because of the failure of several facilities to successfully operate at commercial scale. We do believe it strongly suggests that we should view the individual company projections as something other than the most likely outcomes. In order to take a “neutral aim at accuracy” in projecting cellulosic biofuel production volumes, as directed by the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, we have decided to treat these company projections as the high end of a potential production range unless this volume exceeds the volume calculated using our six-month straight-line ramp-up period methodology, suggesting that these company projections are unreasonably high. We will continue to monitor the progress and experience of the cellulosic biofuel industry and may adjust our approach as appropriate in light of additional experience.
We believe our range of projected production volumes for each company represents the range of what is likely to actually happen for each company. A brief overview of each of the companies we believe will produce cellulosic biofuel and make it commercially available in 2015 can be found in a memorandum to the docket.
After establishing a projected production range for each facility (or group of facilities for CNG/LNG producers), we must then determine a method for using these projected production ranges to project the volume of cellulosic biofuel most likely to be produced by the cellulosic biofuel industry as a whole in 2015. As discussed above, the high and the low end of the range for each company represents values such that it is possible but unlikely that actual volumes would fall outside of those ranges. At present, data does not exist to allow EPA to develop a unique production probability distribution for each company based on the available information. Even if EPA were able to undertake such a task there is no evidence that the distributions we developed would necessarily be more accurate than a standardized distribution curve as the cellulosic biofuel industry is still in its infancy and there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with many of the factors that will impact production at each individual facility. This is supported by the poor accuracy of the individual company estimates in previous years, which were made by individuals with significant technical expertise and knowledge of each individual company and technology.
Rather than attempting to develop a unique probability distribution curve that represents likely cellulosic biofuel production for each company, EPA has instead separated the list of potential cellulosic biofuel producers into two groups; those who have already achieved consistent commercial-scale production and those who have not. We believe grouping the potential cellulosic biofuel producers using the criteria of whether or not they have achieved consistent commercial-scale production is appropriate for the purposes of projecting a likely production volume. While each of these groupings contains a diverse set of companies with their own production technologies and challenges, we believe there is sufficient commonality in the challenges related to the funding, construction, commissioning, and start-up of commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel facilities to justify aggregating these company projections into a single group for the purposes of projecting the most likely production volume of cellulosic biofuel. The challenges new production facilities face are also significantly different than those of facilities ramping up production volumes to the facility
Because the cellulosic biofuel industry is still in its infancy and it is therefore not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the precise production volume each individual company will achieve, we believe that it would not be appropriate to choose a specific value within the projected range for each individual company/source. We believe it is more appropriate to identify a specific value within the aggregated ranges from Tables IV.D-2 and IV.D-3 that best reflects the likely production volume for each group of companies. For companies that have not yet achieved consistent commercial-scale production (Table IV.D-2) we are proposing to use the 25th percentile of the projected production range. We believe this volume is appropriate as, in addition to the uncertainties listed above, there is also significant technology risk as these facilities attempt to operate their technologies at commercial scale. In the early years of the cellulosic biofuel industry several companies, including Cello Energy, Range Fuels, and KiOR experienced significant technical difficulties in scaling up their technologies and were able to produce little, if any, volumes of cellulosic biofuels. It is necessary to consider this history when projecting production volumes from companies who have not yet achieved consistent production at commercial scale.
For the group of companies that have achieved consistent commercial-scale production (Table IV.D-3) we are proposing to use the mid-point (50th percentile) of the projected range. We believe that this point accounts for the uncertainty related to the scale-up of production from the volume produced in the previous 12 months (through March 2015) as well as other uncertainties related to the generation of RINs such as documenting that the fuel is used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. This is not to say that we anticipate that each of these facilities within each group will produce at the 25th or 50th percentile, but rather that as a group the 25th and 50th percentile, respectively, are realistic projections for each group of companies. We believe this methodology accounts for the fact that some individual company may be able to deliver the volume of cellulosic biofuel they expect and produce at or near the high end of the range, while others may experience difficulty transitioning to commercial production and produce closer to the low end of the range. The result of applying this methodology is shown in Table IV.D-4 below.
EPA anticipates that if the same methodology is used in future years that as cellulosic biofuel companies successfully achieve commercial scale production, application of this methodology will appropriately generate increasing volume projections, both for the individual companies and for the industry as a whole. This will happen in two ways. First, as companies successfully produce cellulosic biofuel the low end of the range (which is based on the most recent 12 months of production for which data is available) will increase. Second, we would use the 50th percentile value, rather than the 25th percentile, for all companies who have achieved consistent commercial-scale production. If merited by the available data, we will also consider using a higher (or lower) percentile for both new facilities and facilities that have already achieved consistent commercial-scale production. We will consider comments on this matter, and after establishing percentile values for use in this rulemaking we expect we will annually review the percentile values and adjust them as appropriate, taking into account the success of past projections, to ensure that our methodology produces a production projection that takes a neutral aim at accuracy. As new pathways for the production of cellulosic biofuel are approved, we will also consider volumes produced using these pathways in our projections.
The final step in projecting the potentially available volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2015 is to combine the volumes of cellulosic biofuel actually produced in months for which data is available with the projected production volumes for the remaining months of 2015. This is shown in Table IV.D-5 below. For 2015 we are proposing a cellulosic biofuel standard of 106 million gallons. We request comment on the methodology used to project cellulosic biofuel volumes in 2015, as well as the general methodology used to project future cellulosic biofuel production.
To project the volume of potentially available cellulosic biofuel in 2016 we are proposing to use a methodology very similar to the one proposed for projecting cellulosic biofuel production in 2015 for months in which actual production data was not available. For 2016 we separated the list of potential producers of cellulosic biofuel into two groups according to whether or not the facilities have already begun producing commercial-scale volumes of cellulosic biofuel or who are expected to do so by July 1, 2015 (See Table IV.E-1 and Table IV.E-2).
To calculate the high end of the projected production range for each group of companies we considered each company individually (with the exception of the CNG/LNG producers) and used the same methodology in 2016
After defining likely production ranges for each group of companies we projected a likely production volume from each group of companies for 2016. We projected a total production volume from the companies that we do not anticipate will begin commercial-scale production by July 1, 2015 using the 25th percentile of the projected production range (Table IV.E-1). For the companies that have already achieved consistent commercial-scale production or anticipate starting commercial-scale production by July 1, 2015, we used the 50th percentile of the aggregate projected production range (Table IV.E-2). This is consistent with the approach we used for projecting volumes in 2015, which is discussed in more detail in the preceding section. We intend to re-evaluate our categorization of the companies for the final rule using the most up to date information available.
The final step in projecting the potentially available volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2016 is to combine the volumes of cellulosic biofuel projected to be produced from each of the two groups discussed above (shown in Table IV.E-3 below). For 2016 we are proposing a cellulosic biofuel volume requirement of 204 million gallons. For our final rule we will use the most recent production data and company information available to update our projections. We request comment on the methodology and data used to project cellulosic biofuel volumes in 2016.
On January 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision concerning a challenge to the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard.
The renewable fuel standards are expressed as volume percentages and are used by each obligated party to determine their Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO). Since there are four separate standards under the RFS program, there are likewise four separate RVOs applicable to each obligated party. Each standard applies to the sum of all gasoline and diesel produced or imported. The percentage standards are set so that if every obligated party meets the percentages, then the amount of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), and advanced biofuel used will meet the applicable volumes established in this rule on a nationwide basis.
Sections II, III, and IV provide our rationale and basis for the proposed volumes for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, BBD, and cellulosic biofuel, respectively. The volumes to be used to determine the four proposed percentage standards are shown in Table V.A-1.
The following formulas are used to calculate the four percentage standards applicable to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel (see 40 CFR 80.1405):
The formulas used in deriving the annual percentage standards rely on estimates of the volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel, for both highway and nonroad uses, that are projected to be used in the year in which the standards will apply.
In CAA section 211(o)(9), enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress provided a temporary exemption to small refineries
As specified in the RFS2 proposed rule,
The levels of the percentage standards would be reduced if Alaska or a U.S. territory chooses to participate in the RFS program, as gasoline and diesel produced in or imported into that state or territory would then be subject to the standard. Neither Alaska nor any U.S. territory has chosen to participate in the RFS program at this time, and thus the value of the related terms in the calculation of the standards is zero.
Note that because the gasoline and diesel volumes estimated by EIA include renewable fuel use, we must subtract the total renewable fuel volumes from the total gasoline and diesel volumes to get total non-renewable gasoline and diesel volumes. The values of the variables described above are shown in Table V.B.3-1.
Although the Act
Using the volumes shown in Table V.B.3-1, we have calculated the proposed percentage standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 as shown in Table V.B.3-2.
We are proposing several revisions to the RFS regulations, which are described below. The first proposed revision relates to the definition of terms in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, which describes approved biofuel production pathways. The second set of revisions would address annual compliance reporting and associated attest reporting deadlines. We request comment on all aspects of these proposed amendments.
In the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14670), EPA established two pathways for biofuels derived from algae to generate D-Code 4 (Biomass-Based Diesel) or 5 (Advanced) RINs. The pathways approved in the March 2010 RFS rule assumed that algae would be grown photosynthetically (i.e., using predominantly sunlight and CO2 as inputs) and harvested for their oil.
We also note that any companies wishing to produce fuel using genetically modified algae must conform to all other appropriate EPA regulations. For example, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Biotechnology Program regulates the use of new genetically-engineered microorganisms (including bacteria, fungi, algae, viruses, protozoa, etc.) that are used in the production of biofuels under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The RFS regulations establish deadlines for parties with renewable volume obligations (obligated parties and renewable fuel exporters) to submit
Under existing RFS regulations (40 CFR 80.1451(a) and 80.1464(d)), obligated parties and renewable fuel exporters must submit compliance demonstration reports for each calendar year by March 31 of the following year, and associated attest engagements by June 1 of the following year. The EPA has recognized that it is important for obligated parties preparing a compliance demonstration report for a given calendar year to have an understanding of their RFS obligations for the next compliance year.
Although the EPA has not yet issued a final 2014 RFS annual rule, and the generally-applicable March 31 deadline for compliance demonstration reports for the 2014 compliance year has now passed, the EPA has not adopted amendments to the regulations applicable to 2014 compliance demonstration and attest engagement reporting as it did with respect to the 2013 compliance year. Instead the EPA issued an Enviroflash on March 17, 2015 to clarify that obligated parties are not required to submit compliance demonstration reports or associated attest engagements for the 2014 compliance year until the EPA issues a final rule establishing the final 2014 RFS standards and sets (in that action) deadlines for 2014 compliance demonstrations and associated attest engagements for obligated parties. We noted in the Enviroflash our interpretation of the current regulatory deadlines as being inoperative for obligated parties for the 2014 compliance year because final 2014 RFS standards have not been established and it is therefore impossible for obligated parties to assess and demonstrate their compliance with the applicable standards. However, in that same Enviroflash we clarified that the situation is different for exporters of renewable fuel. Exporter renewable volume obligations are based on renewable fuel export volume, not on the RFS percentage standards. Therefore we stated in the Enviroflash that renewable fuel exporters must comply with the operative deadlines in the regulations for 2014 reporting, although precise obligations may differ depending on the portion of the year during which exports occurred, in light of regulatory amendments related to the deadline for exporter RIN retirements that were adopted in the July 18, 2014 RFS Quality Assurance Plan rule.
The Agency now believes that setting a firm calendar date for 2013 compliance and attest engagement reports is preferable to the current approach of tying the deadlines for 2013 reporting to the date of publication of the 2014 annual rule in the
We are proposing that compliance demonstration reports for obligated parties be submitted no later than January 31, 2016 for the 2013 compliance year, June 1, 2016 for the 2014 compliance year, and December 1, 2016 for the 2015 compliance year. Associated attest engagement reports would be due no later than June 1, 2016 for the 2013 compliance year, December 1, 2016 for the 2014 compliance year, and June 1, 2017 for the 2015 compliance year. We believe that this sequencing of reports, and the time allowed between them will allow obligated parties to proceed in a logical and orderly fashion to submit required reports, with sufficient intervening time so as not to pose an unreasonable burden.
For exporters of renewable fuel, we are proposing the same amendments to 2013 compliance year reporting deadlines as for obligated parties—annual compliance demonstration reports would be due no later than January 31, 2016, and associated attest engagement reports would be due no later than June 1, 2016. For 2014, the issue is more complex. For the 2014 compliance period from January 1, 2014 through September 16, 2014, partial annual compliance reports containing an exporter's name, registration number, and renewable volume obligation (ERVO) for that period were required to be submitted no later than March 31, 2015 as currently proscribed in the regulations under § 80.1451(a)(1).
Following issuance of the March 17, 2015 Enviroflash to address reporting deadlines for obligated parties and renewable fuel exporters for the 2014 compliance year, the Agency received comments from attest engagement
The auditors also cited other reasons for why the 2013 and 2014 compliance year attestations should be revised. The auditors stated that there is confusion and uncertainty in industry about whether the June 1, 2015 deadline still applies to RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating renewable fuel importers, other parties holding RINs, and independent third-party auditors because they were not explicitly mentioned in the March 17, 2015 Enviroflash and because the Agency previously issued a broader attest extension related to reporting deadlines for the 2013 compliance year and thus, any subsequent communication by the Agency would be expected to address all regulated parties. Since many parties have not yet completed their 2013 compliance year attestations because they are not required to do so, they do not have any expectation that the attestations for the 2014 compliance year are due June 1, 2015.
In 2014, the EPA changed the annual reporting deadline for all 40 CFR part 80 fuel programs from February 28 to March 31 and the attest deadline from May 31 to June 1. This is the first year that these new deadlines are in effect. The effects of the shorter time period between the annual reporting deadline and the deadline for attest engagement reports are exacerbated this year by the confusion surrounding the June 1, 2015 attest reporting deadline for RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating renewable fuel importers, other parties holding RINs, and independent third-party auditors. Auditors need a reasonable amount of time to plan and execute any type of assurance engagement. The planning phase involves the evaluation of independence, execution of engagement letters, and scheduling of resources.
In light of the confusion surrounding the reporting deadlines for the 2014 compliance year for RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating renewable fuel importers, other parties holding RINs, and independent third-party auditors, the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation sought a no action assurance from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance regarding enforcement of the 2014 reporting deadlines for these parties. In response, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued a conditional no action assurance on May 21, 2015 that provides, in part, as follows:
In this action, we are proposing a new attest engagement reporting deadline for the 2013 compliance period for RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating renewable fuel importers, and other parties owning RINs of no later than January 31, 2016. Additionally, we are proposing the same attest engagement reporting deadline of January 31, 2016 for these parties and for independent third-party auditors for the 2014 compliance year.
Given the many different reporting schedules across the 2013, 2014, and 2015 compliance years that the Agency is proposing for obligated parties, exporters, RIN generating renewable fuel producers and importers, independent third-party auditors, and other parties owning RINs, and the multiple considerations the Agency is trying to balance across regulated parties, we seek comment on whether the proposed deadlines are appropriate and for whether there are other specific considerations that the Agency should evaluate when establishing the 2013, 2014, and 2015 annual compliance and attest engagement reporting deadlines.
We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process.
We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document. We will accept comments during the period indicated under the
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. Commenters are especially encouraged to provide specific suggestions for any changes that they believe need to be made. You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through the electronic public docket,
In addition to one complete version of the comments that include any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. This non-CBI version of your comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is presented in Sections II.G and III.E of this preamble.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0637 and 2060-0640. The proposed standards would not impose new or different reporting requirements on regulated parties than already exist for the RFS program.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities directly regulated by the RFS program are small refiners, which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201 as refiners with 1,500 employees or less company-wide.
EPA has conducted a screening analysis to assess whether it should make a finding that there would be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We discuss this analysis below. The impacts of the RFS program on small entities were already addressed in the March 26, 2010 RFS2 rulemaking (75 FR 14670), which was a rule that implemented the entire program required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). As such, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process that took place prior to the 2010 rule was also for the entire RFS program and looked at impacts on small refiners through 2022.
For the SBREFA process for the March 26, 2010 RFS2 rulemaking, EPA conducted outreach, fact-finding, and analysis of the potential impacts of the program on small refiners which are all described in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, located in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161). This analysis looked at impacts to all refiners, including small refiners, through the year 2022 and found that the program would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and that this impact was expected to decrease over time, even as the standards increased. The analysis included a cost-to-sales ratio test, a ratio of the estimated annualized compliance costs to the value of sales per company, for gasoline and/or diesel small refiners subject to the standards. From this test, it was estimated that all small entities would have compliance costs that are less than one percent of their sales over the life of the program (75 FR 14862).
This proposed rule would not impose any additional requirements on small entities beyond those already analyzed, since the impacts of this proposed rule are not greater or fundamentally different than those already considered in the analysis for the March 26, 2010 rule assuming full implementation of the RFS program. As shown above in Tables I.A-1 and I.A-3 (and discussed further in Sections II and IV), this rule proposes to establish the 2014, 2015, and 2016 volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel at levels significantly below the statutory volume targets. This exercise of EPA's waiver authorities reduces burdens on small entities, as compared to the burdens that would be imposed under the volumes specified in the Clean Air Act in the absence of waivers. Regarding the biomass-based diesel standard, we are proposing to increase the volume requirements for 2014-2016 over the statutory minimum value of 1 billion gallons. However, this is a nested standard within the advanced biofuel category, for which we are proposing significant reductions from the statutory volume targets. As discussed in Section III, we are setting the biomass-based diesel volume requirement at a level below what is anticipated will be produced and used to satisfy the reduced advanced biofuel requirement. The net result of our proposed actions are a reduction in burden as compared to implementation of the statutory volume targets, as was assumed in the March 26, 2010 analysis. Furthermore, available information shows that the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule will not be significant. Using the maximum values of the illustrative costs discussed in Section II.F., the gasoline and diesel fuel volume projections in Table V.B.3-1, and current wholesale fuel prices, a simple cost-to-sales ratio test shows that the costs to small entities of the RFS standards remain less than 1% of the value of their sales.
The program also includes compliance flexibilities that can reduce impacts on small entities. These flexibilities include RIN trading, 20%
Given that this proposed rule would not impose additional requirements on small entities, would decrease burden via a reduction in required volumes as compared to statutory volume targets, and would not change the compliance flexibilities currently offered to small entities under the RFS program, we have therefore concluded that this action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(o) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule will be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they produce, purchase, and use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes (CAA section 211(o)).
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action simply proposes the annual standards for renewable fuel under the RFS program for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment by applicable air quality standards. This action does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the RFS regulations and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
Statutory authority for this action comes from section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of this proposed rule come from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).
Environmental protection, Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR part 80 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2014 shall be 0.019 percent.
(ii) The value of the biomass-based diesel standard for 2014 shall be 1.42 percent.
(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel standard for 2014 shall be 1.52 percent.
(iv) The value of the renewable fuel standard for 2014 shall be 9.02 percent.
(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2015 shall be 0.059 percent.
(ii) The value of the biomass-based diesel standard for 2015 shall be 1.41 percent.
(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel standard for 2015 shall be 1.61 percent.
(iv) The value of the renewable fuel standard for 2015 shall be 9.04 percent.
(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2016 shall be 0.114 percent.
(ii) The value of the biomass-based diesel standard for 2016 shall be 1.49 percent.
(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel standard for 2016 shall be 1.88 percent.
(iv) The value of the renewable fuel standard for 2016 shall be 9.63 percent.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xiv)(A) For the 2013 compliance year, annual compliance reports shall be submitted no later than January 31, 2016.
(B) For obligated parties, for the 2014 compliance year, annual compliance reports shall be submitted no later June 1, 2016.
(C) For exporters of renewable fuel, for the 2014 compliance period from January 1, 2014, through September 16, 2014, full annual compliance reports (containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (vi), (viii), and (x) of this section) for that period shall be submitted no later than January 31, 2016.
(D) For obligated parties, for the 2015 compliance year, annual compliance reports shall be submitted no later than December 1, 2016.
(g)(1) For obligated parties and exporters of renewable fuel, for the 2013 compliance year, reports required under this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than June 1, 2016.
(2) For RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, and other parties owning RINs, for the 2013 compliance year, reports required under this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than January 31, 2016.
(3) For obligated parties, for the 2014 compliance year, reports required under this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than December 1, 2016.
(4) For exporters of renewable fuel, for the 2014 compliance period from January 1, 2014, through September 16, 2014, full reports for that period required under this section shall be submitted no later than June 1, 2016.
(5) For RIN-generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, and other parties owning RINs, for the 2014 compliance year, reports required under this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than January 31, 2016.
(6) For obligated parties, for the 2015 compliance year, reports required under this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than June 1, 2017.
(i) * * *
(3) Reporting requirements. For the 2014 compliance year, reports required under paragraph (i) of this section shall be submitted to the EPA no later than January 31, 2016. For the 2015 compliance year and each subsequent year, reports required under paragraph (i) of this section shall be submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |