| Page Range | 34827-35176 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 34908 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34887 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 34901 - Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees | |
| 80 FR 34879 - Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee-Subcommittee on Land Tenure | |
| 80 FR 34906 - Notice of Suspension and Commencement of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism | |
| 80 FR 34879 - Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; Request for Nominations | |
| 80 FR 34962 - Agency Information Collection Activity; Proposed Collection | |
| 80 FR 34888 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part | |
| 80 FR 34893 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part | |
| 80 FR 34959 - Internal Revenue Service | |
| 80 FR 34960 - Internal Revenue Service | |
| 80 FR 34962 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5884-C | |
| 80 FR 34963 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5310-A | |
| 80 FR 34961 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 712 | |
| 80 FR 34827 - Strategic Economic and Community Development | |
| 80 FR 34960 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on Excise Tax for Income Realized on Receipt of Greenmail | |
| 80 FR 34881 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 34880 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 34963 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 80 FR 34857 - Proposed Establishment of the Loess Hills District Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 34864 - Proposed Expansion of the Willamette Valley Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 34912 - Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected With HIV | |
| 80 FR 34936 - State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory Committee (SLTPS-PAC) | |
| 80 FR 34929 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Cottonwood Resource Management Plan and Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Sale of Public Land in Idaho County, Idaho | |
| 80 FR 34887 - Privacy Act New System of Records | |
| 80 FR 34891 - Privacy Act New System of Records | |
| 80 FR 34957 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SC&RA); Application for Exemption | |
| 80 FR 34934 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34936 - Executive Order 13650 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security Webinar: Implementation Updates | |
| 80 FR 34899 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision | |
| 80 FR 34881 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Hass Avocados From Peru | |
| 80 FR 34930 - Public Land Order No. 7836; Withdrawal of National Forest System Lands for the White King/Lucky Lass Mines Remediation Areas; Oregon | |
| 80 FR 34931 - Notice of Availability for the Alton Coal Tract Coal Lease by Application Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Utah | |
| 80 FR 34882 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid; Quarantine and Interstate Movement Regulations | |
| 80 FR 34902 - Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 34952 - Notification of the Next CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34871 - Ocean Dumping: Proposed Modification of Final Site Designation | |
| 80 FR 34843 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners; Request for Information | |
| 80 FR 34967 - MyVA Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34966 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34886 - Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 34928 - Receipt of Enhancement of Survival Permit Applications Developed in Accordance With the Template Safe Harbor Agreement for the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit | |
| 80 FR 34966 - Cancellation of Meeting; Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting Cancellation | |
| 80 FR 34883 - Conservation Reserve Program | |
| 80 FR 34933 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 34909 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 34910 - Non-Microbial Biomarkers of Infection for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Use; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 34909 - Factors To Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations for Medical Device Investigational Device Exemptions; Draft Guidance for Investigational Device Exemption Sponsors, Sponsor-Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 80 FR 34900 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 34927 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 34926 - Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 34926 - Guam; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 34927 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals; Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees | |
| 80 FR 34935 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Asbestos in Construction Standard | |
| 80 FR 34891 - Melamine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 80 FR 34936 - Notice of Submission for Approval: Information Collection 3206-0106; Interview Survey Form, INV 10 | |
| 80 FR 34946 - Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 19.3(i) | |
| 80 FR 34949 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Sections 401, 402 and 404 of the NYSEMKT Company Guide To (i) Provide That Companies Can Comply With the Exchange's Immediate Release Policy by Disseminating the Information Required To Be Disseminated Pursuant to This Policy by Any Regulation Fair Disclosure Compliant Method or Combination of Methods, (ii) Clarify the Procedures Taken by the Exchange in the Event of Unusual Market Activity and (iii) Update References to Exchange Departments and Personnel and Make Other Non-Substantive Conforming Updates | |
| 80 FR 34939 - New York Alaska ETF Management LLC, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 34924 - Notice of Opportunity and Procedures To Request Assistance on Tariff Classification and Customs Valuation Treatment by Other Customs Administrations Affecting United States Exports | |
| 80 FR 34937 - Rate Adjustment Remand | |
| 80 FR 34921 - Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs; Request for Information Regarding Specific Issues Related to the Use of the Hair Specimen for Drug Testing | |
| 80 FR 34839 - Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits | |
| 80 FR 34834 - Delegations of Authority: Office of Regulation Policy and Management (ORPM) | |
| 80 FR 34932 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 34904 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 34905 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 34902 - Announcement of an Open Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 34953 - Muscle Shoals Reservation Redevelopment, Colbert County, Alabama | |
| 80 FR 34841 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Possession Limit Adjustments for the Common Pool Fishery | |
| 80 FR 34956 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for New Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 34922 - Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; Fiscal Year 2014 | |
| 80 FR 34869 - Hearing on Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions | |
| 80 FR 34908 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 34833 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chambers Creek, Steilacoom, WA | |
| 80 FR 34831 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) | |
| 80 FR 34855 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; El Paso, TX | |
| 80 FR 34900 - Prize Purchases | |
| 80 FR 34827 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 34874 - Organization and Functions of the Board and Delegations of Authority | |
| 80 FR 34988 - Spring 2015 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
| 80 FR 34856 - Qualifying Income From Activities of Publicly Traded Partnerships With Respect to Minerals or Natural Resources; Correction | |
| 80 FR 34838 - Removal of Obsolete Provisions | |
| 80 FR 34837 - Opioid Drugs in Maintenance and Detoxification Treatment of Opiate Addiction; Proposed Modification of Dispensing Restrictions for Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine Combination as Used in Approved Opioid Treatment Medications; Correction | |
| 80 FR 35174 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35170 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35166 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35128 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Spring 2015 | |
| 80 FR 35122 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35116 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35108 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35098 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35094 - Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35090 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35082 - Spring 2015 Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35078 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35056 - Department Regulatory Agenda; Semiannual Summary | |
| 80 FR 35048 - Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35044 - Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35040 - Unified Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35030 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35016 - Regulatory Agenda | |
| 80 FR 35012 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 35008 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 34976 - Semiannual regulatory Agenda, Spring 2015 | |
| 80 FR 34970 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
| 80 FR 34835 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Transportation Conformity and Conformity of General Federal Actions |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Interim rule; delay of effective date.
On May 20, 2015, USDA published an interim rule establishing a priority for projects that support the implementation of strategic economic and community development plans across multi-jurisdictional areas. This priority applies to several specific programs with the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. The effective date was listed as June 19, 2015 and is being delayed to July 17, 2015.
Farah Ahmad, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 3254, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone: 202-245-1169. Email:
The interim rule published in the May 20, 2015,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model and 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded door closure of a large lower lobe cargo door. This AD requires inspecting for part numbers and serial numbers of the rotary actuators of the forward and aft large lower lobe cargo doors, as applicable, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rotary actuators made with a material having poor actuator gear wear characteristics, which could result in failure of the rotary actuators for the forward or aft large lower lobe cargo doors and subsequent uncommanded door closure, which could possibly result in fatal injury to people on the ground.
This AD is effective July 23, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 23, 2015.
For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Susan Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model and 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines stated that it concurs with the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014), and FedEx Express stated that it has no technical objections to incorporating the NPRM.
United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance time for Model 767 airplanes be revised from 30 months to 72 months to match the 72-month compliance time for Model 777 airplanes. UPS stated that the same actuator part number is used on both Model 767 and Model 777 airplanes and is modified by the same Eaton service information. UPS also contended that the same level of safety can be achieved because the compliance times are “not based on flight cycles but on flight hours,” and Model 767 and 777 fleets have common cargo door installations and functions.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance time. The design of the door and the operating system of the door for the two models of airplane are different. The two models are subject to different actuator loading. In developing appropriate compliance times for this action, we considered the safety implications of each design for timely replacement of the actuators. Further, the compliance time matches Boeing's recommended compliance times. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
Air France requested that operators who have checked their maintenance records and know which serial numbers are on the actuators in their fleet be allowed to keep “post-AD” actuators installed without being required to re-identify those actuators until those actuators are removed for other reasons. Air France stated that an operator that knows exactly which serial numbers are on the rotary actuators on its fleet is aware of which units have already been modified or not.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to postpone re-identification. The task to re-identify the actuator can be done without removing the actuator from the airplane. Re-identification of the actuators, as required by this AD, will ensure that the maintenance records match the airplane configuration. Delaying this re-identification action introduces possible confusion. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of changes to the compliance time for re-identification if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
Eaton and Boeing stated that some actuator serial numbers were omitted from table 1, which identifies parts that do not need to be modified, in Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 2, dated August 1, 2013. Boeing requested that the final rule be delayed until the Boeing and Eaton service information are revised to have the correct numbers. Boeing also stated that if the final rule is not delayed pending issuance of the revised service information, unnecessary actions might be performed on actuators not subject to the unsafe condition. Eaton stated that in table 1, two digits were transposed; what is listed as “3173B” should be “3137B” (
We agree with the commenters' request to reference updated service information. We have received the revised service information, and agree to revise this final rule to refer to the corrected service information. We have reviewed Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014, which contains a revised table 1 that corrects the transposed digits and includes the omitted serial numbers. We have also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015; and 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015; which update the reference to Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014. The revised service information would provide relief for operators that have those omitted serial numbers. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), (h), and (i) of this AD to refer to the revised service information and have added new paragraph (j) to this AD to provide credit for previous actions done using the service information referenced in the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014). We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Emirates Airlines requested that credit for the actuator modification be granted for all actuators having part number (P/N) 692D100-13, with serial numbers containing a suffix “B.” Emirates Airlines suggested that the required work for those “suffix B” actuators be limited to re-identification. Emirates Airlines stated that it found actuators having a suffix “B” installed on its Model 777 fleet, but those actuators were not listed in table 1 of Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 2, dated August 1, 2013. Emirates Airlines referenced section 52-34-02 of the Eaton Component Maintenance Manual (CMM), and stated that the CMM states “all serial number 2907 and above are equipped with 692D190-5 no-back brake assemblies and the serial number will carry a suffix `B.' These units with a serial number `B' suffix incorporate ball detent match set P/N 692C130-1.” Emirates Airlines suggested that installation of no-back assemblies with P/N 692D190-5 during production, or repair using section 52-
We do not agree to grant credit for all actuators with a “B” suffix. The revised Eaton service bulletin (Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014) discussed previously did not include all serial numbers 2907 and above with a “B” suffix in table 1. We also have not received data to substantiate a change to expand the range of acceptable serial numbers. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that the wording of the Parts Installation Prohibition paragraph (paragraph (j) for the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014), which has been redesignated as paragraph (k) of this AD) be revised to read “After the Terminating Date of the AD, Do NOT install a rotary actuator having Boeing part number. . .” or that the paragraph be removed from the AD. UPS interpreted the proposed prohibition of “As of the effective date of this AD, no rotary actuator having Boeing . . . may be installed on any airplane” as prohibiting any of those actuators currently installed on the airplane to remain installed. UPS contended that if leaving an affected actuator on the airplane is acceptable for the duration of the AD, then installing another actuator with the same affected part number within the compliance time of the AD should be acceptable. UPS added that if paragraph (j) of the NPRM were removed or revised, then the concern about spare parts availability would be reduced.
We disagree with the request to revise paragraph (k) of this AD, but provide the following clarification of the intent of paragraph (k) of this AD. Paragraph (k) of this AD does not address parts that are already on the airplane; instead, it affects the installation of an affected replacement rotary actuator done on or after the effective date of this AD. Simply taking a part off and then installing it back on the airplane as part of gaining access for some other maintenance activity not associated with this final rule is not regarded as an installation that is affected by paragraph (k) of this AD.
In developing the technical information on which this final rule is based, we considered the availability of spare parts that this final rule will require and the compliance time, and found that sufficient parts are available. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE (
We agree with the commenter that STC ST01920SE (
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 36678, June 30, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2014; and 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015. The service information describe procedures for inspecting for part numbers and serial numbers of the rotary actuators of the forward and aft large lower lobe cargo doors, as applicable, and corrective action if necessary.
Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015; and 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015; refer to Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014, which provides serial number information and procedures for doing certain corrective actions (rework of certain rotary actuators or re-identification of certain other rotary actuators).
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 510 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary re-identification or replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these re-identifications or replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 23, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015.
(2) Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded door closure of a large lower lobe cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rotary actuators made with a material having poor actuator gear wear characteristics, which could result in failure of the rotary actuators for the forward or aft large lower lobe cargo doors and subsequent uncommanded door closure, which could possibly result in fatal injury to people on the ground.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each rotary actuator installed in the forward and aft large lower lobe cargo doors, as applicable, to determine the part number and serial number, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015; and Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014. Do the applicable corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. A review of maintenance records for the part number and serial number is acceptable in lieu of the inspection if the part and serial numbers of the rotary actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.
For Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each rotary actuator installed in the forward and aft large lower lobe cargo doors, as applicable, to determine the part number and serial number, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015; and Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014. Do the applicable corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. A review of maintenance records for the part number and serial number is acceptable in lieu of the inspection if the part and serial numbers of the rotary actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.
Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015, specify a compliance time after the issue date “of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2013; and Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 2, dated August 1, 2013. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the
As of the effective date of this AD, no rotary actuator having Boeing part number S135W132-3 (supplier part number 692D100-13) may be installed on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the applicable addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3), (n)(4), and (n)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-52A0100, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2015.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-52-0053, Revision 2, dated January 19, 2015.
(iii) Eaton Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Revision 3, dated August 14, 2014.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) For Eaton service information identified in this AD, contact Eaton Corporation, Aerospace Operations, 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1200, Irvine, CA 92614; telephone 949-253-2100; fax 949-253-2111; Internet
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting certain washers for movement and making appropriate repairs if the washers move. This AD was prompted by play found between the Smart Electro Mechanical Actuator (SEMA) and the control rod during installation work on a helicopter. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of concerned control axis and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective July 23, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of July 23, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On August 18, 2014, at 79 FR 48707, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0176, dated August 7, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC 135 P1 (CDS), EC 135 P1 (CPDS), EC 135 P2+, EC 135 P2 (CPDS), EC 135 T1 (CDS), EC 135 T1 (CPDS), EC 135 T2+, EC 135 T2 (CPDS), EC 635 P2+, EC 635 T1 (CPDS), EC 635 T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that during installation work on a helicopter, it was discovered that it was not possible to install attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the SEMA and the control rod without play. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of the concerned control axis, possibly resulting in loss of helicopter control. For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2013-0176 requires a one-time inspection of the affected SEMA attachment hardware to detect improper connection and play and, depending on the findings, replacement of the affected hardware. After the issuance of EASA AD No. 2013-0176, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH.
After our NPRM (79 FR 48707, August 18, 2014) was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Air Methods stated that the proposed AD requires compliance with Revision 1 of the service information and requested that previous compliance with the original service information, Revision 0, be included as an acceptable method of compliance in the AD.
We agree. We have added a paragraph to the AD giving credit for previous compliance with Revision 0 of the service information.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD applies to Eurocopter Model EC635P2+, EC635T1 and EC635T2+ helicopters. This AD does not apply to these model helicopters because they have no FAA type certificate.
Eurocopter reported in Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs) EC135-22A-015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013, and MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009, that it was discovered during the installation work on a helicopter that it was not possible to establish attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the SEMA and the control rod without play. The ASBs state that “unfavourable adding of the tolerances” of the individual attachment hardware elements caused the screw to push against the bottom of the threaded blind borehole on the SEMA, preventing any clamping force on the screw head. The ASBs call for inspecting the SEMA attachment hardware connected to their respective control rods for play and making the proper adjustments to eliminate any play.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 385 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:
• Inspecting for movement of the washers requires 1.5 work hours for a labor cost of $128 per helicopter and $49,280 for the U.S. fleet.
• Replacing the screws and related work requires an additional 0.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $43. Screws cost $4 each while washers cost $10 each. We estimate the cost at $79 per repair.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose attachment hardware between the Smart Electro Mechanical Actuator (SEMA) and a control rod. This condition could result in loss of the control axis and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective July 23, 2015.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 50 hours time in service (TIS), for Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, and EC135T2+ helicopters, do the following:
(i) Using Figure 1 and Figure 2 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013 (ASB EC135-22A-015) as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the SEMA and the longitudinal actuator control rod to determine whether any of the washers can be moved.
(A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
(B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and install two additional washers, part number (P/N) EN2139-05016, to connect the SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm.
(ii) Using Figure 1 and Figure 2 of ASB EC135-22A-015 as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the SEMA and the lateral actuator control rod to determine whether any of the washers can be moved.
(A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
(B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm.
(iii) Using Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4 of ASB EC135-22A-015 as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the SEMA and the yaw actuator control rod to determine whether any of the washers can be moved.
(A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
(B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm.
(2) Within 50 hours TIS, for Model MBB BK117 C-2 helicopters, using Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009, as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the Yaw-SEMA and the Yaw-SEMA control rod to determine whether any of the washers can be moved.
(i) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
(ii) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm and apply polyurethane lacquer onto the attachment hardware.
If you performed the actions in Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 0, dated May 13, 2018, or Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 0, May 13, 2008, before the effective date of this AD, you met the requirements of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0176, dated August 7, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2213, Flight Controller.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013.
(ii) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Chambers Creek Railway Bridge across Chambers Creek, mile 0.0, at Steilacoom, Washington. The deviation is necessary to minimize the effects of train noise on the 2015 U.S. Golf Association Championship held at Chambers Bay Golf Course. This deviation allows the bridge to open only upon 1 hour notice from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015 and 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day from June 15, 2015 to June 22, 2015. At all other times the bridge will open on signal in accordance with its normal operating regulation.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from June 18, 2015 to 5 p.m. on June 22, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on June 14, 2015, until June 18, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0552] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Steven Fischer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Administrator; telephone 206-220-7282,
The Coast Guard has been requested to issue this bridge deviation to allow BNSF to implement noise reduction operations near the Chambers Bay Golf Course during the 2015 U.S. Golf Association Championship being held there. This deviation allows the BNSF Chambers Creek Railway Bridge to open only upon 1 hour notice from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015 and 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day from June 15, 2015 to June 22, 2015. At all other times the bridge will open on signal in accordance with its normal operating regulation. Doing so will minimize the number of trains required to idle while awaiting bridge openings.
The BNSF Chambers Creek Railway Bridge across Chambers Creek, mile 0.0, near Steilacoom, Washington provides 50 feet of vertical clearance in the raised position, 10 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position and 80 feet of horizontal clearance. Reference plan is mean high water elevation of 12.2 feet. The normal operation schedule falls under 33 CFR 117.5.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on June 14, 2015 to 5 p.m. on June 22, 2015. The deviation allows the bridge to open only upon 1 hour notice from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015 and 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day from June 15, 2015 to June 22, 2015. At all other times the bridge will open on signal in accordance with its normal operating regulation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway of the change in operating schedule for the bridge through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is amending its regulations delegating rulemaking authority within the Office of the General Counsel. The amendments reflect current management structure and titles.
William F. Russo, Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 461-4902. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of the General Counsel was restructured, which included changes in the titles of certain officials involved in VA's rulemaking process. Specifically, matters previously handled by the single Deputy General Counsel are now handled by a Principal Deputy General Counsel and two Deputy General Counsels. This final rule amends 38 CFR 2.6(e)(1) to reflect current management structure and titles.
This document's publication as a final rule is pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), which exempts matters pertaining to agency organization, procedure and practice from notice and public comment requirements. Also, because this notice concerns only such matters, VA finds pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) good cause in this case to dispense with the delayed effective date requirement.
Under the exemption in section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 for regulations limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters, this document is not subject to the Executive Order's review requirements.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule, because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rule. Even so, the Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This amendment will not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, this amendment is also exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers for this rule.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Authority delegations (Government agencies).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 2 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 302, 552a; 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 3702, and as noted in specific sections.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Under the Federal Clean Air Act (Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions update the transportation conformity rules and remove the general conformity provisions.
This rule is effective on July 20, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0938. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeffrey Riley (6PD-L), telephone: (214) 665-8542, email:
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our February 10, 2015 direct final rule and proposal (80 FR 7341). The rule and proposal stated that if any relevant adverse comments were received by the end of the public comment period, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and we would respond to the comments in a subsequent final action. A relevant adverse comment was received during the comment period, and the direct final rule was withdrawn on April 8, 2015 (80 FR 19020). Our proposal provides the basis for this final action. These revisions amend the transportation conformity SIP provisions and remove the general conformity provisions from the SIP, as allowed by the Act's 2005 amendments. These revisions also address interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures.
We received one comment on the direct final rule by one commenter, Sierra Club. The comment and our response to the comment is below.
Comment: “Acting regional administrator Sam Coleman cannot sign approvals, disapprovals, or any combination of approvals or disapproval, in whole or in part, due to the fact that agency actions on state implementation plans are required to be signed by the regional administrator, Ron Curry, not the current deputy regional administrator as stated in the agency's delegations manual. The manual specifically states that SIP actions can't be redelegated from the regional administrator.”
Response: As the Acting Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator Sam Coleman had authority to sign the proposal and direct final action on the SIP revisions. On January 28, 2015, the day that the proposal and direct final action were signed, Sam Coleman was acting in the capacity of the Regional Administrator for Ron Curry, who was absent from Region 6 at the time. The following language is listed in the Region 6 Deputy Regional Administrator's position description “In the absence of the Regional Administrator, the Deputy Regional Administrator will perform the duties of the Regional Administrator.” Further, EPA Region 6 Order 1110.11 establishes a line of succession to perform the duties of the Regional Administrator should the Regional Administrator be absent from the office. The Deputy Regional Administrator is the first person listed on that line of succession. Copies of the two documents are included in the docket for this rulemaking. Finally, the heads of administrative agencies are statutorily vested with the authority to delegate authorities to subordinate officials, 5 U.S.C. 302. Federal Courts have held that rules, including internal delegations and appointments of authority are effective regardless of publication in the
The comment only challenged the Deputy Regional Administrator's authority to sign the Direct Final Action. EPA received no other comments or challenges as to the substance of the proposal or direct final. Therefore, we are finalizing our action to approve these SIP amendments.
Pursuant to sections 110 and 176 of the Act, EPA is approving three revisions to the New Mexico SIP that were submitted on October 28, 2011, November 1, 2013, and August 8, 2014. We evaluated the state's submittals and determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA sections 110 and 176 and applicable EPA guidance. In accordance with CAA section 110(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the New Mexico regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 17, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Final rule; correction.
The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective June 18, 2015.
Jinhee Lee, Division of Pharmacologic Therapies, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1028, Rockville, MD 20857, (240) 276-2700, email:
On December 6, 2012 (77 FR 72752), HHS published a final rule in the
Health professions, Levo-AlphaAcetyl-Methadol (LAAM), Methadone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 823; 42 U.S.C. 290bb-2a, 290aa(d), 290dd-2, 300x-23, 300x-27(a), 300y-11.
(i) * * *
(3) Such determinations and the basis for such determinations consistent with the criteria outlined in paragraph (i)(2) of this section shall be documented in the patient's medical record. If it is determined that a patient is responsible in handling opioid drugs, the dispensing restrictions set forth in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section apply. The dispensing restrictions set forth in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section do not apply to buprenorphine and buprenorphine products listed under paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) During the first 90 days of treatment, the take-home supply (beyond that of paragraph (i)(1) of this section) is limited to a single dose each week and the patient shall ingest all other doses under appropriate supervision as provided for under the regulations in this subpart.
(ii) In the second 90 days of treatment, the take-home supply (beyond that of paragraph (i)(1) of this section) are two doses per week.
(iii) In the third 90 days of treatment, the take-home supply (beyond that of paragraph (i)(1) of this section) are three doses per week.
(iv) In the remaining months of the first year, a patient may be given a maximum 6-day supply of take-home medication.
(v) After 1 year of continuous treatment, a patient may be given a maximum 2-week supply of take-home medication.
(vi) After 2 years of continuous treatment, a patient may be given a maximum one-month supply of take-home medication, but must make monthly visits.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Direct final rule.
Much of the information set out in certain regulations regarding HHS's programs and activities is obsolete. Also, electronic resources are now available that did not exist when this part was first codified. This rule removes these obsolete regulations.
This action is effective August 17, 2015 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by July 20, 2015 If adverse comment is received, HHS will publish a timely cancellation of the action in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this action. You may submit electronic comments to
Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201
The provisions of 45 CFR part 1, specifying the CFR locations of regulations for HHS's programs and activities, and regarding the subject matter of the Office of the Secretary regulations, have not been updated since 1987. These regulations have become obsolete and inaccurate. At the time they were added to the CFR, it was felt that this material would prove helpful to the public. However, the growth of electronic accessibility to regulations through such governmental sources as:
Notice and comment are not required for this rule, because it affects agency organization, procedure, or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Furthermore, HHS believes that there is good cause hereby to bypass notice and comment, and to proceed to a direct final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B). The action is non-controversial, merely removing information from the CFR that is obsolete and inaccurate, and whose current locations are otherwise readily available. This rule posed no new substantive requirements on the public. Accordingly, HHS believes this direct final rule will not elicit any significant adverse comments, but if such comments are received HHS will publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the
This action does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as set out under Executive Order 12866, and review by the Office of Management and Budget has accordingly not been required.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
This action does not impose any information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Code of Federal Regulations, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority at 5 U.S.C. 301, HHS amends 45 CFR subchapter A by removing part 1.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule.
FMCSA amends its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits rules to update the current incorporation by reference of the “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” Currently the rules reference the April 1, 2014, edition of the out-of-service criteria and, through this final rule, FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2015, edition.
Effective June 18, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of June 18, 2015.
Mr. Michael Huntley, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Policy, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-9209 or via email
This rulemaking updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). The rules currently reference the April 1, 2014, edition of “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” In this final rule, FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2015, edition. The revision does not impose new requirements or substantively amend the Code of Federal Regulations.
Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to improve the safety of hazardous materials transported in interstate commerce. Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(e), relating to inspections of motor vehicles carrying hazardous material, and 49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, it has required the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations as part of a comprehensive safety program on hazardous material safety permits. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has promulgated regulations to address the congressional mandate. Such regulations on hazardous materials are the underlying provisions that have utilized the material incorporated by reference discussed in this notice.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) specifically provides that adherence to its notice and public comment rulemaking procedures are not required where the Agency finds there is good cause to dispense with such procedures (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons to support the finding in the rules issued). Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B)). This document updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). The revision does not impose new requirements or substantively change the Code of Federal Regulations. For these reasons, the FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.
Currently, 49 CFR 385.415 prescribes operational requirements for motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a hazardous materials safety permit is required. Section 385.415(b)(1) requires that motor carriers must ensure a pre-trip inspection be performed on each motor vehicle to be used to transport a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the requirements of the “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” With regard to the specific edition of the out-of-service criteria, 49 CFR 385.4, as amended on May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27766), references the April 1, 2014, edition. Specifically, this final rule amends § 385.4 (b) by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2014, edition date with the new edition date of April 1, 2015.
FMCSA reviewed the April 1, 2015, edition and determined there are no substantive changes that would result in motor carriers being subjected to a new or amended standard. The changes are highlighted below for reference. It is necessary to update the reference to ensure that motor carriers and enforcement officials have convenient access to the correctly identified inspection criteria that are referenced in the rules.
There are eight changes made in the 2015 edition. Additional conforming changes have been made to the table of contents, but those are not included in this summary. (All references are to the April 1, 2015 North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.) The first change is to create consistency in the language used between commercial driver's license (CDL) and non-CDL drivers, when being taken out of service. (Part I, item 2.a.(1)) It does not change the criteria used to take drivers out of service, therefore this is not a substantive change. The second change is to align the standard with FMCSA's regulation governing operation of a vehicle while fatigued, found at 49 CFR 392.3. (Part I, Item 6.) Again, this change does not alter the criteria an inspector would use to take
The third change removes Part I, Item 7, which addresses communication. The 2014 edition included an item covering the responsibility of the driver and motor carrier to ensure adequate communication in Canada, Mexico, and the United States (the three countries covered by the standard). However, because the FMCSRs only require drivers in the United States to be able to communicate in English for basic purposes (converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records), there should be no additional burden placed on drivers in the United States as a result of the change in the 2015 standard. As a result, removing this item will not have a substantive impact on drivers.
The fourth, fifth and sixth changes amend Part II, Item 1. (BRAKE SYSTEMS). The language for the out-of-service condition for Defective Brakes and Front Steering Axle(s) Brakes was modified to add loose and missing caliper mounting bolts to the 20% calculation for determining OOSC for hydraulic brakes. Its omission was an oversight when the criterion for brakes was rewritten; FMCSA views this change as nonsubstantive. (Part II, Item 1.a. & b.) An amendment to the language for the application of OOSC for worn hoses clarifies that this section is intended for air brake hoses only, and as such is not a substantive change. (Part II, Item 1.h.) Also, the amendment to the OOSC addresses the improper repair of hydraulic brake lines by means of placing a piece of tubing over the metal tubing and attaching with hose clamps. As this method of repair is not permitted under the FMCSRs, this change will not have a substantive impact. (Part II, Item 1.o.)
The seventh change revises wording that was causing confusion in Part II, Item 3. (COUPLING). The current language causes confusion and gives the impression that the entire fifth wheel is not being taken into consideration. The new OOSC language clarifies how to measure cracks in parent metal, how to determine the 20% weld cracks, and defines a “well defined (especially open) crack” as well as a crack in a repair weld. This revision is a clarification and not a substantive change. (Part II, Item 3.a. & b.)
The final change adds a paragraph (c) to Part II, Item 15. This new paragraph explicitly calls out the practice of using loose or temporary seating. As the practice is already prohibited under the FMCSRs (see 49 CFR 393.91, 390.33), the additional language does not alter the criteria an inspector would use to take a driver out of service and as such does not rise to a substantive change. (Part II, Item 15.c.)
FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011), or within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). FMCSA expects the final rule will have no costs; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not, therefore, review this document.
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 rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the 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, Michael Huntley, listed in the
The final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532,
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on States or localities. FMCSA analyzed this rule under that Order and has determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FMCSA determined that this final rule will not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children. In addition, it is not an economically significant rule, and no such analysis is therefore required.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (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 require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rule.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of ascertaining the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12898 and determined that there are no environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any collective environmental impacts resulting from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were a “disproportionate” and “high and adverse impact” on minority or low-income populations. FMCSA analyzed this action under NEPA and found the action to be categorically excluded from analysis due to the lack of impact to the environment. This final rule simply updates an incorporation by reference and would not result in high and adverse environmental impacts.
FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that E.O. because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the rule 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter. The standard incorporated by reference is discussed in detail in section III. Background and is reasonably available through the CSVA Web site.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, section 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.
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR chapter III, part 385 as set forth below:
49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 13901-13905, 31133, 31135, 31136, 31137(a), 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec. 113(a), Pub. L. 103-311; Sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88; Sec. 350 of Pub. L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(b) * * *
(1) “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403,” April 1, 2015; incorporation by reference approved for § 385.415(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
This action decreases the possession and landing limit for Gulf of Maine cod to zero for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. NMFS is taking this action because the common pool has caught 44.5 percent of its Trimester 1 Total Allowable Catch Gulf of Maine cod quota in the first month of the trimester. This action is intended to prevent the overharvest of the common pool's fishing year 2015 allocation of Gulf of Maine cod and prevent the closure of the Gulf of Maine to all common pool vessels before the end of the Trimester.
Effective June 15, 2015, through April 30, 2016.
Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8493.
Regulations governing the Northeast (NE) multispecies fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator (RA) to adjust the possession limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.
Based on data reported through May 25, 2015, 44.5 percent of the common pool trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 1.5 mt, and 12 percent of the sub-Annual Catch Limit (sub-ACL) of 5.6 mt for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod has been caught. Recent analysis shows that the common pool would likely exceed its Trimester TAC for the GOM cod stock before the end of June if action is not taken, which would result in the closure of the GOM cod Trimester TAC Area. We are reducing the possession limit and trip limit for GOM cod to zero. The possession limit and trip limit adjustments are effective June 15, 2015, through April 30, 2016. If a vessel has declared its trip through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to the effective date, it will not be subject to the new trip limits for that trip.
Under a zero possession limit, the bycatch and discard of GOM cod will continue to be accounted for. On observed common pool trips, observers record actual discards; unobserved trips receive the assumed discard rate based on observed trips. The assumed discard rate is applied based on the pounds of all landed species, which means that even at a zero possession limit for GOM cod, the cumulative catch of GOM cod (which includes both landed and discards) will continue to increase. If vessels respond to this action by vigorously redirecting onto other NE multispecies, the landing of those species and the associated assumed discards of GOM cod could push the cumulative catch of GOM cod closer to 90 percent of the Trimester TAC, potentially triggering the closure of the GOM cod Trimester TAC Area. Alternatively, this action could cause a reduction of common pool fishing effort in the GOM, leading to less bycatch and discard of GOM cod, if the zero possession limit makes it uneconomical for some trips to occur.
Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at:
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.
The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the RA to adjust the NE multispecies trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. The catch data and analysis used as the basis for this action only became available on June 1, 2015. The available analysis indicates that if the GOM cod trip limits are not reduced immediately, the common pool fishery will likely exceed its Trimester TAC for this stock. As a result, this action reduces the likelihood that the RA will be required to close a significant portion of the GOM to the common pool fishery. Any overages of the common pool quota for this stock would undermine conservation objectives and trigger the implementation of accountability measures that would have negative economic impacts on the common pool vessels. As a result, the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent NMFS from implementing the necessary trip limit adjustments in a timely manner, which could undermine conservation objectives of the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for room air conditioners (room ACs). According to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's 6-year review requirement, DOE must publish by April 8, 2017 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to propose new standards for room ACs or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. This RFI seeks to solicit information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for room ACs would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. In addition, DOE has identified several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure for room ACs on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment.
Written comments and information are requested on or before August 3, 2015.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments electronically. However, comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Direct requests for additional information may be sent to:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part B
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for room ACs manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards were justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)-(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 24, 1997 (hereafter the September 1997 Final Rule), revising the energy conservation standards for room ACs manufactured on or after October 1, 2000. 62 FR 50122. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published a direct final rule on April 21, 2011 (hereafter the April 2011 Direct Final Rule), amending the energy conservation standards for room ACs manufactured on or after April 21, 2014. 76 FR 22454. DOE published a final rule amending the compliance dates for energy conservation standards for residential room air conditioners. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011). In a separate notice, also on August 24, 2011, DOE confirmed the adoption of these energy conservation standards in a notice of effective date and compliance dates for the direct final rule published on August 24, 2011 (76 FR 52854), which also adopted compliance dates which were set forth in a proposed rule published on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26656). The current energy conservation standards apply to room ACs manufactured on or after June 1, 2014.
EPCA 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 April 8, 2017, either a NOPR proposing amended standards for room ACs or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. This notice represents the initiation of the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA and seeks input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether amended standards pertaining to room ACs are warranted. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether more stringent 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))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following:
1. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expense;
3. The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 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))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is specifically publishing this notice as the first step in the analysis process and is specifically requesting input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses.
In the next section, DOE has identified a variety of questions that DOE would like to receive input on to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether new standards for room ACs may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this notice.
DOE defines “room air conditioner” under EPCA as “a consumer product, other than a “packaged terminal air conditioner,” which is powered by a single phase electric current and which is an encased assembly designed as a unit for mounting in a window or through the wall for the purpose of providing delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. It includes a prime source of refrigeration and may include a means for ventilating and heating. (10 CFR 430.2) DOE intends to address energy conservation standards for all room ACs.
DOE notes that other consumer products, including portable ACs and residential dehumidifiers, are self-encased, powered by a single phase electric current, refrigeration-based, and provide delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. Portable ACs also provide connection through ducting to a window mounting bracket. DOE believes, however, that the requirement in the room AC definition that the encased assembly be designed as a unit for mounting in a window refers to the product in its entirety, and not just to duct connections. For this reason, DOE is not proposing to update the definition of “room air conditioner” to exclude other consumer products.
DOE is aware that room ACs may provide additional consumer-oriented functions besides cooling, heating, and ventilation. Certain units may offer an air circulation feature, in which the room air is circulated without the addition of any outside air. In addition, certain units may provide an air cleaning function by means of electrostatic filtration, ultraviolet radiation, or ozone generators. DOE requests feedback from interested parties on the suitability of adding references to air circulation, air cleaning, or other functions to the room air conditioner definition.
Prior to June 1, 2014, room AC performance was certified using the energy efficiency ratio (EER). EER is expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per watt-hour (Wh), and is the quotient of: (1) The cooling capacity in Btu per hour, divided by: (2) The electrical input power in watts (W). (10 CFR 430.23(f)(2))
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140, amended EPCA to require that standby mode and off mode energy consumption be integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor unless the Secretary determines that (i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully account for and incorporate standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
On January 6, 2011, DOE published in the
In the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE incorporated by reference into the room AC test procedures specific clauses from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power”, First Edition, 2005-06 (IEC Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding test conditions and test procedures for measuring standby and off mode power consumption. DOE also incorporated definitions of “active mode,” “standby mode,” and “off mode” that are based on the definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power”, Second Edition, Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). Further, DOE adopted language to clarify the application of clauses from IEC Standard 62301 First Edition and the mode definitions from IEC Standard 62301 CDV for measuring standby and off mode power consumption. 76 FR 972, 979-987 (Jan. 6, 2011). Also as part of the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE amended the room AC test procedure to update the references to industry test standards to the versions applicable at that time: (1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) RAC-1-2008, “Room Air Conditioners” (ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008);
On February 25, 2015, DOE published a test procedure NOPR for portable ACs that proposes the use of a revised CEER metric that accounts for energy consumption in each of the identified active, standby, and off modes: Cooling mode, heating mode, off-cycle mode, inactive mode, and off mode (hereafter referred to as the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR). 80 FR 10212. As discussed in section II.A of this notice, DOE is requesting input on including definitions for different operating modes in the definitions for room ACs. If such additional modes are included, DOE would also consider whether to revise the current room AC CEER metric to account for the energy use in them. In particular, DOE is interested in feedback on whether to consider including in the room AC CEER metric the same modes proposed for the portable AC metric, because of the similarity between the two products.
As a possible approach, DOE could consider the proposal in the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR, in which average power in each mode would be measured and then individually multiplied by the annual operating hours for its respective mode.
In order to calculate AEC
To incorporate the new operating modes into a revised CEER metric, the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR proposed defining the new term; “combined cooling mode EER” (CEER
The CEER
To calculate the overall energy efficiency metric for portable ACs without a heating function, the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR proposed that the revised CEER would be directly equal to the unit's calculated CEER
The current room AC test procedure specifies that cooling mode performance be tested in accordance with the methods and conditions in ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008 and ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA2009). (10 CFR part 430, appendix F to subpart B)
If DOE revises the room AC test procedure to require calculation of CEER
In the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR DOE proposed using an air enthalpy method to measure portable AC heating performance. The proposed method is based on AHAM PAC-1-2014 “Portable Air Conditioners” (AHAM PAC-1), which references test methods established in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009. 80 FR 10211, 10217-10231 (Feb. 25, 2015). For this method, DOE proposed standard rating conditions for the evaporator (room) side and condenser (outdoor) side of dual-duct portable ACs as shown in Table II.1. DOE considers the test conditions in Table II.1 to be the most representative of typical heating mode use for portable ACs, which are likely used as supplemental or low-capacity heaters when a central heating system isn't necessary or operating. DOE notes that the terms “evaporator” and “condenser” refer to the heat exchanger configuration in cooling mode, not the reverse-cycle heating mode.
In the current PTAC and PTHP test procedure (10 CFR 431.96), DOE also uses an air enthalpy method to measure heating mode performance. For this test procedure, DOE incorporates by reference in total the American Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 310/380-2004 “Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners And Heat Pumps” (ARI 310/380-2004).
In the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE discussed that the test procedure established in that rule does not measure the benefits of technologies that improve part-load performance. 76 FR 972, 1016 (Jan. 6, 2011). The current room AC test procedure measures only the full-load performance at outdoor ambient conditions of 95 °F dry-bulb and 75 °F wet-bulb. Therefore, technologies that improve part-load performance, such as multiple-speed compressors and variable-opening expansion devices, will not improve the rated performance of a room AC under the current test procedure. In contrast, central ACs and heat pumps are rated with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) descriptor, but the test procedure consists of multiple rating points at different conditions that add time and expense when rating the product.
DOE concluded in the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule that widespread use of part-load technology in room ACs would not likely be stimulated by the development of a part-load metric at this time, and therefore, the significant effort required to develop an accurate part-load metric is not likely to be warranted by the expected minimal energy savings. 76 FR 972, 1016 (Jan. 6, 2011.
For the current test procedure rulemaking, DOE again intends to investigate the merits and limitations of revising the current room AC test procedure to account for any benefits of technologies that improve part-load performance. As part of this investigation, DOE expects to research the availability of room ACs on the market in the United States that incorporate variable speed compressors and other components and controls that would enable implementation of part-load operation.
DOE is aware that there are room ACs available in the United States that can operate on multiple voltages for the input power. These products may have a different capacity measured at each operating voltage. As a result, a single product may be categorized into two different product classes and therefore be required to comply with two different energy conservation standards, depending on which voltage is used to test the product. Currently, the room AC test procedure does not specify which voltage a product should be tested at, if it is capable of operating with multiple voltages.
On February 20, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final Version 4.0 “ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Room Air Conditioners.”
DOE anticipates that the revised ENERGY STAR specification may increase the market penetration of “connected products.” It is possible that connected products may consume a significant amount of energy while performing these connected functions. As such, DOE is considering whether to amend the room AC test procedure and energy conservation standards to account for the energy consumed while the product performs connected functions.
The market and technology assessment provides information about the room AC industry that will be used throughout the rulemaking process. For example, this information will be used to determine whether the existing product class structure requires modification based on the statutory criteria for setting such classes and to explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of such products. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the room AC industry and market. DOE will identify and characterize the manufacturers of room ACs, estimate market shares and trends, address regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of room ACs. DOE will also review product literature, industry publications, and company Web sites. Additionally, DOE will consider conducting interviews with manufacturers to assess the overall market for room ACs.
As required by EPCA, the criteria for separation into different classes are: (1) Type of energy used, or (2) capacity or other performance-related features such as those that provide utility to the consumer or others deemed appropriate by the Secretary that would justify the establishment of a separate energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (q))
For room ACs, the NAECA amendments to EPCA, initially specified 12 product classes which were applicable to units designed for single-hung or double-hung window installation or through-thewall installation and based on the following
DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will include a subset of the technology options considered during the most recent room AC energy conservation standards rulemaking. These technologies are listed in Table II.4.
DOE is aware that certain technologies listed in Table II.4 may have progressed since the April 2011 Direct Final Rule. Specifically, at the time of that analysis, the room AC industry was responding to the EPA-mandated phase-out of HFC-22 refrigerant. 74 FR 66412, 66418 (Dec. 15, 2009). This rule led to an industry changeover to R-410A refrigerant. Manufacturers expressed concern at the time over the availability of R-410A compressors, stating that production capacity of compressor suppliers had not fully rebounded and compressor suppliers had yet to offer the same range of compressor capacities and efficiency tiers (See chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (TSD).). Consequently, DOE plans to investigate improvements in R-410A compressors that may have come available since the April 2011 Direct Final Rule.
Additionally, in the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE investigated the technological feasibility of the alternative refrigerant R-407C. 76 FR 22490 (April 21, 2011). For this rulemaking, DOE may reevaluate R-407C, as well as other hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerants.
Furthermore, DOE is aware that three new refrigerants have been approved for use in room air conditioners by the EPA under the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), subject to certain use conditions: R-290, R-441A and R-32.80 FR 19454 (Apr. 10, 2015). For this rulemaking, DOE plans to investigate the technological feasibility of these refrigerants.
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
Appendix A to subpart C of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430 (10 CFR part 430), “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” (the Process Rule), sets forth procedures to guide DOE in its consideration and promulgation of new or revised equipment energy conservation standards. These procedures elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and, in part, eliminate problematic technologies early in the process of prescribing or amending an energy efficiency standard. In particular, sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule guide DOE in determining whether to eliminate from consideration any technology that presents unacceptable problems with respect to the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass production of a technology in commercial equipment and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will be considered practicable to manufacture, install, and service.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.
Technology options developed in the technology assessment are evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from manufacturers, trade organizations, and energy efficiency advocates. Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred to as “design options” in the engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
As a part of the screening analysis, DOE has identified three specific
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis DOE limited the total weight of the Product Class 1 (as defined in Table II.3) baseline unit to 50 pounds, to avoid exceeding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines for single-person lifting.
OSHA guideline:
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis, DOE used a methodology that established maximum chassis widths and heights for each product class, when considering a baseline unit. DOE established these limits based on the dimensions of the largest R-410A room AC in each product class on the market. DOE did not set a limit for maximum chassis depth in that analysis.
DOE understands that increased noise levels might occur as room ACs attain higher levels of efficiency. Certain technology options, such as higher speed fans, can facilitate increased heat transfer and improved efficiency, but may result in increased acoustic noise. As a part of the screening analysis, DOE intends to investigate this relationship, specifically as it relates to impacts on consumer utility. As such DOE seeks input on test methods appropriate to objectively evaluate acoustic noise in room ACs.
DOE is aware that the European Union (EU), through its EcoDesign regulations, recently instituted maximum sound power levels for room ACs assessed under EN 12102:2013 “Air Conditioners, liquid chilling packages, heat pumps and dehumidifiers with electrically driven compressors for space heating and cooling—Measurement of airborne noise—Determination of sound power levels” (EN 12102:2013). Under the new EU regulation, room ACs may not exceed indoor sound power levels of 60 decibels (dB)(A) and outdoor sound power levels of 60dB(A).
Similarly, the October 28, 2014 EPA Draft 1 of Version 4.0 “ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Room Air Conditioners”
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency (“efficiency levels”). 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 change in manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency levels (ELs) for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.
For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards.
DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy conservations standards (which went into effect June 1, 2014) to establish the baseline efficiency levels for each product class. Table II.5 presents the current energy conservation standards for room ACs. If DOE amends the room AC test procedure to provide an efficiency metric other than the current CEER, DOE will adjust the CEER baseline levels to account for the new metric.
For each product class, DOE will define efficiency levels beyond the baseline and develop incremental manufacturing cost data for each efficiency level. To define the efficiency levels, DOE tentatively plans to evaluate potential efficiency improvements from available design options and consider voluntary certification program levels such as ENERGY STAR and Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (CEE) Super Efficient Home Appliance Initiative (SEHA). The current ENERGY STAR and CEE voluntary certification levels are presented in Table II.6.
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the residential consumer of baseline products that satisfies the currently applicable standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the consumer would purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to estimate the residential consumer's price.
For the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE based the distribution channels on data from AHAM. For room ACs, the main actors are manufacturers and retailers. Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products; (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. DOE plans to use the same approach in the current rulemaking.
As was done in the last rulemaking and consistent with the approach followed for other energy consuming products, DOE will determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes room ACs. DOE will determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retailers.
In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE will develop and include sales taxes to calculate appliance retail prices. DOE will use an Internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy savings potential of different product efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy consumption and energy-savings potential in the LCC and PBP analyses to establish the savings in consumer operating costs at various product efficiency levels. In contrast to the DOE test procedure, which provides a measure of the energy use, energy efficiency or annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle, the energy use analysis seeks to capture the range of operating conditions for room ACs in U.S. homes.
To determine the field energy use of products that would meet possible standard levels, DOE proposes to use data from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) 2009
For the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE used the data reported by RECS on the annual energy consumption (field energy consumption) for room air conditioning. The reported end-use quantities were not based on metering of individual appliances; rather, EIA used a regression technique to estimate how much of the total annual electricity consumption for each household can be attributed to each end-use category. The reported field energy consumption refers to the consumption of all of the room ACs in a home. RECS also reports the number of room ACs in the home. To estimate the energy consumption of a single room AC for this rulemaking, DOE divided the room AC energy use reported in RECS by the reported number of room ACs. For houses with both central air conditioning and room air conditioning, DOE scaled the energy use by using a relative use factor. Although in reality the utilization of each of the room ACs in a home may vary, the RECS data does not allow DOE to estimate such variation.
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE estimated that, based on stakeholder input, 12-percent of room AC shipments were utilized in commercial building applications. The
DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on consumers of residential room AC products by determining how a potential amended standard affects the consumers' operating expenses (usually decreased) and total installed costs (usually increased).
DOE intends to analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from RECS and commercial buildings from CBECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level relative to the baseline level.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense. The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are the baseline consumer price, standard-level consumer price increases, and installation costs. Baseline consumer prices and standard-
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived the installation costs from room AC data in RS Means. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). DOE plans to use similar data sources for this rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect current-day labor and material prices as well as to scale installation cost for higher-efficiency products based on equipment weight and/or dimensions.
The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are product energy consumption, product efficiency, electricity prices and forecasts, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates.
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE assumed a maintenance increase for the higher-capacity units due to more expensive product cost but no maintenance differences with higher efficiency units. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011).
Repair costs are costs associated with a major repair during the lifetime of the product. In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined the costs of major repairs (
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels relative to a base case that reflects the market in the absence of amended standards. DOE plans to develop market-share efficiency data (
DOE uses shipment projections by product class and efficiency level in its analysis of the national impacts of potential standards, as well as in the manufacturer impact analysis.
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for room ACs driven by historical shipments data, which were used to build up a product stock and calibrate the shipments model. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). Shipments of each product class were projected for two market sectors that use these products: residential and commercial sectors.
In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE modeled the decision to repair or replace equipment for existing owners and the impact that decision would have on the shipments model. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). DOE investigated how increases in product purchase price and decreases in product operating costs due to standards impact product shipments.
The purpose of the national impact analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy savings (NES) from potential standards and the national net present value (NPV) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers lifetime impacts of potential standards on room ACs shipped in a 30-year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption of products in residential and commercial building stock for the base case and each standards case. To develop the national NPV of consumer benefits from potential standards, DOE calculates national annual energy expenditures and annual product expenditures for the base case and the standards cases. DOE calculates total annual energy expenditures using data on annual energy consumption in each case, forecasted average annual energy prices, and shipment projections. The difference each year between operating cost savings and increased product expenditures is the net savings or net costs.
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the product energy efficiency forecasted over time for the base case and for each of the standards cases. In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE based projections of base-case shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) for the room AC product classes on growth rates determined from historical data provided by AHAM. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). For this rulemaking, DOE plans on considering recent trends in efficiency and input from stakeholders to update product energy efficiency forecasts.
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the financial impact of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of room ACs and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model used to estimate a range of potential impacts on manufacturer profitability. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses a proposed standard's potential impacts on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of potential energy conservation standards on small business manufacturers of covered products. DOE intends to use the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and
DOE used publically available information to attempt to identify any small business that manufactures room ACs. DOE cross-referenced the manufacturers listed in DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) with individual company Web sites and market research tools (
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by August 3, 2015, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new or amended energy conservations standards for room ACs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the analyses, and reviewing the public comments, as needed. These actions will be taken to aid in the development of a NOPR for room ACs if DOE decides to amend the standards for such products.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking or would like to request a public meeting should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at El Paso, TX. The closure of West Texas Airport has made this action necessary for continued safety and management within the National Airspace System. Additionally, the geographic coordinates for El Paso International Airport and Biggs Army Airfield (AAF) would be adjusted.
Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify the docket number FAA-2014-1074/Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-1074 and
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX. This action is necessary due to the closure of the airport; therefore controlled airspace is no longer needed. Additionally, geographic coordinates for El Paso International Airport, would be changed from (lat. 31°48′24″ N., long. 106°22′40″ W.) to (lat. 31°50′59″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.); and Biggs AAF coordinates would be changed from (lat. 31°50′58″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.) to (lat. 31°50′59″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.). These minor adjustments would reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.1-mile radius of Biggs AAF, and within a 8.4-mile radius of El Paso International Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 050° bearing from El Paso International Airport extending from the 8.4-mile radius to 13 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 093° radial of the El Paso VORTAC extending from the 8.4-mile radius to 7.3 miles east of the VORTAC.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Proposed rule; Correction.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14) that was published in the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 80 FR 25970, May 6, 2015 are still being accepted and must be received by August 4, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132634-14), Room
The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14) that is the subject of these corrections is under section 7704(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published in the
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14), that was the subject of FR Doc. 2015-10592, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 25972, in the preamble, first column, under paragraph heading “D. Processing or Refining”, sixteenth line from the bottom of the first paragraph, the language “with Rev. Rul. 87-56 (1987-2 CB 27)” is corrected to read “with Rev. Proc. 87-56 (1987-2 CB 674)”.
2. On Page 25975, first column, the fifteenth and sixteenth lines of paragraph (c)(5)(i), the language “activity in accordance with Rev. Rul. 87-56, 1987-2 CB 27 (see” is corrected to read “activity in accordance with Rev. Proc. 87-56, 1987-2 CB 674 (see”.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 12,897-square mile (8,254,151-acre) “Loess Hills District” viticultural area in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. The proposed viticultural area is not located within, nor does it contain, any other established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by August 17, 2015.
Please send your comments on this proposed rule to one of the following addresses (please note that TTB has a new address for comments submitted by U.S. mail):
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this proposed rule for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or request copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Shirley Frederiksen, on behalf of the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development Inc. and the Western Iowa Grape Growers, proposing the establishment of the “Loess Hills District” AVA in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. The proposed AVA includes all or portions of Fremont, Page, Mills, Montgomery, Pottawattamie, Cass, Harrison, Shelby, Audubon, Monoma, Crawford, Carroll, Woodbury, Ida, Sac, Plymouth, and Sioux Counties in Iowa, as well as portions of Atchison and Holt Counties in Missouri. The proposed AVA covers 12,897 square miles (approximately 8,254,151 acres) and has 66 commercial vineyards, which cover approximately 112 acres, distributed across the proposed AVA. The proposed AVA also has 13 bonded wineries.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA include its soil, topography, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this proposed rule come from the petition for the proposed Loess Hills District AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Loess Hills District AVA derives its name from the hills made of extremely thick layers of wind-deposited soil called “loess” that are characteristic of the region. Author Cornelia F. Mutel wrote a book about the natural history of the region titled
The names used by several Federal agencies to refer to the region of the proposed AVA contain the words “loess hills.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service has designated the region as a Major Land Resource Area known as the “Iowa and Missouri Deep Loess Hills.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describes the area of the proposed AVA as the “Western Loess Hills” eco-region. The U.S. Geological Survey describes the region as the “Loess Hills Regional Landform.” The Federal Highway Administration gave the name “Loess Hills National Scenic Byway” to a corridor of roads passing through the region of the proposed AVA. Finally, the National Park Service has designated 10,000 acres within the proposed AVA as the “Loess Hills National Natural Landmark.”
Within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA are several businesses, organizations, and events that use the words “loess hills” in their names. Two annual events in Monona County, Iowa, are the Loess Hills Prairie Seminar, which teaches children and adults about the natural and cultural history of the region, and the Loess Hills Tractor Ride. The Loess Hills Wind Farm supplies energy to the town of Rock Port, Missouri, which is within the proposed AVA. Council Bluffs, Iowa, is the headquarters of the Loess Hills Preservation Society, which works to protect the natural resources of western Iowa and northwestern Missouri through education, land protection projects, sound land use planning, and land acquisition. The city also is served by a local chapter of the Red Cross, which is called the Loess Hills Red Cross. The Loess Hills Wood Turners, which meets in Glenwood, Iowa, is a club for woodworkers who live in southwestern Iowa. The Loess Hills Hideaway Cabins and Campground is located near Pisgah, Iowa. Finally, Loess Hills Miniatures is a miniature horse farm near Sioux City, Iowa.
Although the region of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is commonly referred to as “Loess Hills,” the petitioner proposes adding “District” to the name in order to avoid potentially affecting current use of the phrase “Loess Hills,” standing alone, in brand names on wine labels. TTB agrees that the addition of the word “District” is an acceptable modification for this purpose.
The proposed Loess Hills District AVA is described in the petition as a long, narrow region of loess-formed hills along the western banks of the Missouri and Big Sioux Rivers in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. The proposed AVA stretches from the Iowa-South Dakota border south to Craig, Missouri, and east to Exira, Iowa. According to the petition, the proposed boundary encompasses the regions where the depth of the loess is greater than 20 feet, which allows for excellent water drainage and vine rooting depth.
The proposed western boundary follows U.S. Interstate 29 and the Big Sioux River and separates the loess-formed hills of the proposed AVA from the low, flat alluvial plains along the Missouri River. The proposed northern, eastern, and southern boundaries follow a series of roads to separate the steep slopes and deep loess of the proposed AVA from the more gently rolling landscapes and shallower loess depths of the surrounding regions.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA include soil, topography, and climate.
The primary distinguishing feature of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is the deep loess soil. Loess is a loose, crumbly soil comprised of quartz, feldspar, mica, and other materials. During the Ice Age, glaciers ground the underlying rocks into a fine powder called “glacial flour.” When the glaciers melted, the water pushed the glacial flour down the Missouri River Valley. When the waters receded, the exposed silt dried and was picked up by the prevailing westerly winds and re-deposited over broad areas. This windborne silt is called “loess.” The heaviest, coarsest loess particles were deposited close to the Missouri River and formed the sharp, high bluffs of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA.
Loess is common throughout the United States, but the loess of the
The soil within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA typically has a high pH value, ranging from 6.9 to 7.3. According to the petition, grapes that are grown in soils with high pH levels show fewer leaf symptoms of nutrient imbalance and are better to withstand cold winters than similar grapes grown in soils with lower pH levels. The petition states the higher soil pH levels of the proposed AVA are the reason varieties such as Noiret, St. Vincent, Vignole, Traminnette, Chardonel, Chambourcin, Cayuga, and Norton are grown successfully within the proposed AVA but are not as common in the regions outside the proposed AVA. Additionally, grapes grown in soils with high pH levels produce must that has lower levels of potassium. Wines produced from grape must with high levels of potassium have lower, less desirable acidity levels and are more susceptible to microbial attacks than wines made from grape must with low levels of potassium.
To the north, east, and south of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA, the depth of loess is less than 20 feet. The soils to the north, east, and south of the proposed AVA also contain glacial till, which forms a restrictive barrier that prevents excess water from draining as rapidly and fully as within the proposed AVA. As a result, artificial drainage is more common in vineyards in these regions than inside the proposed AVA. To the immediate west of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily formed from alluvium and are poorly drained and subject to flooding.
The topography of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is characterized by rolling-to-steep hills. Elevations within the proposed AVA peak at approximately 1,500 feet on the highest ridgelines, though local relief averages approximately 100 feet. Ridge crests are primarily oriented in a north-south direction. Erosion by wind and water has sculpted the ridge crests into irregular shapes called “peaks and saddles,” and streams have carved steep-sided valleys. In places where the soil has become heavily saturated, the soil has slipped as a unit to form rows of staircase-like terraces called “cat steps.” According to the petition, the irregular terrain of the proposed AVA has created sheltered niches with warmer temperatures than are found outside the proposed AVA. As a result, certain plants are able to live hundreds of miles outside their normal ranges, including the yucca, which is native to the southwestern States, and the pawpaw tree, which is native to the southeastern States.
The hilly, often steep, landscape affects viticulture within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA. The hilly terrain allows cold night air to drain off the slopes and away from the vineyards, reducing the risk of frost in the late spring and early fall. The steep slopes also shed excess water more quickly and completely than surrounding regions with flatter terrain, reducing the risk of fungal diseases and rot. However, the steepness of the slopes, combined with the loose texture of the soil, increases the risk of erosion. To reduce erosion, many vineyard owners within the proposed AVA plant their vines in a north-south alignment, with a slightly eastward slant to optimize the amount of sunlight that reaches the vines. Finally, the same warm niches that allow plants such as yucca and pawpaw trees to grow in the proposed AVA also allow very late ripening grape varieties such as Norton, Chambourcin, and Noiret to grow successfully.
Outside of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA, the local topography is generally flatter and lower. To the north, the local relief is similar to that of the proposed AVA, but the hills are more broadly undulating, and wide, nearly level valley floors are common along the large rivers. To the east, the terrain is nearly level to gently rolling, and local relief is between 10 and 20 feet. To the south of the proposed AVA are rolling hills with broad ridge tops and major rivers with nearly level valleys, similar to the topography north of the proposed AVA. Local relief south of the proposed AVA is between 10 and 20 feet, which is lower than that of the proposed AVA. To the west of the proposed AVA, the terrain is marked by broad, undulating ridges and wide flood plains, and the local relief is between 5 and 30 feet.
The petition compared the temperature of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA to the surrounding region. The following table, compiled from data in the petition, summarizes the growing season length, first and last frost dates, and growing degree day (GDD)
The proposed Loess Hills District AVA is well-suited for growing grape varieties that require a long time to mature. The early last-spring-frost date allows vines to emerge from their winter dormancy early without the risk of a late frost damaging the new growth or buds. The late first-fall-frost date ensures ample time for the grapes to remain on the vine and achieve full maturity and reach the desired levels of acids and sugars. Finally, the GDD average reflects warm growing season temperatures that encourage vine growth and fruit development.
To the north and east of the proposed AVA, the growing season is shorter and GDDs are fewer, so late-maturing varieties of grapes would not grow as successfully in these regions as they do within the proposed AVA. West of the proposed AVA, the GDD accumulations are higher, but a later last-spring-frost date increases the risk of frost damage to new vine growth and buds, and an earlier first-fall-frost date poses a risk for grapes that are still ripening late in the growing season. The region to the south has both a longer growing season and greater GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA, so late-maturing varieties may ripen too quickly and develop higher levels of sugars than desired.
The petition also included data on the average annual precipitation amounts for the proposed Loess Hills District AVA and the surrounding regions. The following table was compiled from data in the petition, and the data is from the same sources as the data in the previous table.
The average annual precipitation amounts within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA are higher than the regions to the north and west, and lower than the regions to the east and south. The rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA provide sufficient moisture for the vines, and irrigation is seldom necessary. However, the relatively high rainfall amounts increase the risk of erosion within the proposed AVA, due to the nature of the loess soils. As a result, vineyards on steep hillsides are often planted in a north-south orientation to help hold the soil in place and reduce erosion.
In summary, the evidence provided in the petition indicates that the geographic and climatic features of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions in each direction. To the north, east, and south of the proposed AVA, the topography is characterized by broadly undulating hills with shallower slopes, and the depth of the loess is less than 20 feet. The regions to the north and east also have shorter growing seasons with lower accumulations of GDDs. To the south of the proposed AVA, the growing season is longer and accumulates more GDDs, and precipitation levels are higher. The region to the west of the proposed AVA is characterized by wide flood plains, alluvial soils, less rainfall, and a shorter growing season with higher GDD accumulations.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 12,897-square mile Loess Hills District AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this proposed rule.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Loess Hills District,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using the name “Loess Hills District” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not proposing “Loess Hills,” standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance if the proposed AVA is established, in order to avoid a potential conflict with a current label holder. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full name “Loess Hills District” as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA on wine labels that include the term “Loess Hills District,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule by using one of the following three methods (please note that TTB has a new address for comments submitted by U.S. Mail):
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this proposed rule. Your comments must reference Notice No. 153 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly indicate if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this proposed rule, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0009 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this proposed rule, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this proposed rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Rock Rapids, Iowa-South Dakota, 1985;
(2) Sioux City North, Iowa- South Dakota-Nebraska, 1986; photoinspected 1990;
(3) Storm Lake, Iowa, 1985; photoinspected 1990;
(4) Ida Grove, Iowa, 1985; photoinspected 1990;
(5) Carroll, Iowa, 1993;
(6) Guthrie Center, Iowa, 1993;
(7) Creston, Iowa, 1993;
(8) Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa, 1985; photoinspected, 1990;
(9) Nebraska City, Nebraska-Iowa-Missouri, 1993;
(10) Falls City, Nebraska-Missouri, 1986; photoinspected 1991;
(11) Harlan, Iowa-Nebraska, 1980;
(12) Blair, Nebraska-Iowa, 1986; photoinspected 1988; and
(13) Sioux City South, Iowa-Nebraska South Dakota, 1986; photoinspected 1990.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Rock Rapids, Iowa-South Dakota map, in Sioux County, Iowa, at the intersection of the Big Sioux River and an unnamed road known locally as County Road B30 (360th Street), east of Hudson, South Dakota. From the beginning point, proceed east on County Road B30 approximately 3 miles to a road known locally as County Road K22 (Coolidge Avenue); then
(2) Proceed south on County Road K22 approximately 3 miles to a road known locally as County Road B40 (390th Street); then
(3) Proceed east on County Road B40 approximately 4 miles to a road known locally as County Road K30 (Eagle Avenue); then
(4) Proceed south on County Road K30 approximately 13.1 miles, crossing onto the Sioux City North, Iowa-South Dakota-Nebraska map and continuing into Plymouth County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road C12 (110th Street), at Craig, Iowa; then
(5) Proceed east on County Road C12 approximately 2 miles to a road known locally as County Road K42 (Jade Avenue), at the marked 436-meter elevation point; then
(6) Proceed south on County Road K42 approximately 10 miles to a road known locally as County Road C38; then
(7) Proceed east on County Road C38 approximately 6.4 miles to a road known locally as County Road K49 (7th Avenue SE), approximately 2 miles south of La Mars, Iowa; then
(8) Proceed south on County Road K49 approximately 4 miles to a road known locally as County Road C44 (230th Street); then
(9) Proceed east on County Road C44 approximately 5 miles to a road known locally as County Road K64 (Oyens Avenue); then
(10) Proceed south on County Road K64 approximately 4.1 miles to a road known locally as County Road C60 (290th Street); then
(11) Proceed east on County Road C60 approximately 5 miles, crossing onto the Storm Lake, Iowa map, to State Highway 140; then
(12) Proceed south on State Highway 140 approximately 3.2 miles to a road known locally as County Road L14 (Knox Avenue) in Kingsley, Iowa; then
(13) Proceed south on County Road L14 approximately 2.7 miles, crossing into Woodbury County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road D12 (110th Street); then
(14) Proceed east on County Road D12 approximately 5 miles to a road known locally as County Road L25 (Minnesota Avenue) near Pierson, Iowa; then
(15) Proceed south on County Road L25 approximately 4.5 miles, crossing onto the Ida Grove, Iowa map, to U.S. Highway 20; then
(16) Proceed east on U.S. Highway 20 approximately 22.5 miles, crossing into Ida County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road M25 (Market Avenue); then
(17) Proceed south on County Road M25 approximately 9.8 miles to State Highway 175 east of Ida Grove, Iowa; then
(18) Proceed east on State Highway 175 approximately 4.1 miles to a road known locally as Country Highway M31 (Quail Avenue) near Arthur, Iowa; then
(19) Proceed south on Country Highway M31 approximately 4.4 miles to a road known locally as County Road D59 (300th Street); then
(20) Proceed east on County Road D59 approximately 13 miles, crossing into Sac County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road M64 (Needham Avenue/Center Street) at Wall Lake, Iowa; then
(21) Proceed south on County Road M64 approximately 6.2 miles to a road known locally as County Road E16 (120th Street); then
(22) Proceed east into Carroll County, Iowa, on County Road E16 approximately 6 miles, crossing onto the Carroll, Iowa map, to Breda, Iowa, and then continue east on State Highway 217 (East Main Street) approximately 5 miles to U.S. Highway 71; then
(23) Proceed south on U.S. Highway 71 approximately 3 miles to a road known locally as County Road E26 (140th Street); then
(24) Proceed east on County Road E26 approximately 5 miles to a road known locally as County Road N38 (Quail Avenue); then
(25) Proceed south on County Road N38 approximately 5 miles to U.S. Highway 30 (Lincoln Highway); then
(26) Proceed east on U.S. Highway 30 approximately 3 miles to a road known locally as County Road N44 (Colorado Street) in Glidden, Iowa; then
(27) Proceed south on County Road N44 approximately 8 miles, crossing onto the Guthrie Center, Iowa map, to a road known locally as County Road E57 (280th Street); then
(28) Proceed east on County Road E57 approximately 2 miles to a road known locally as County Road N44 (Velvet Avenue); then
(29) Proceed south on County Road N44 approximately 5.4 miles to State Highway 141 (330th Street) at Coon Rapids, Iowa; then
(30) Proceed west on State Highway 141 approximately 12 miles to U.S. Highway 71 at Lynx Avenue southeast of Templeton, Iowa; then
(31) Proceed south on U.S. Highway 71 approximately 35.9 miles, crossing into Audubon County, Iowa, and then Cass County, Iowa, and onto the Creston, Iowa map, to U.S. Highway 6/State Highway 83 east of Atlantic, Iowa; then
(32) Proceed west, then southwest, then west on U.S. Highway 6 approximately 18.9 miles, crossing onto the Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa map and into Pottawattamie County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road M47 (500th Street) approximately 1 mile west of Walnut Creek; then
(33) Proceed south on County Road M47 approximately 12 miles, crossing into Montgomery County, Iowa to a road known locally as County Road H12 (110th Street); then
(34) Proceed west on County Road H12 approximately 8.9 miles, crossing into Mills County, Iowa, to U.S. Highway 59; then
(35) Proceed south on U.S. Highway 59 approximately 20.2 miles, crossing onto the Nebraska City, Nebraska-Iowa-Missouri map and into Page County, Iowa, to a road known locally as County Road J14 (130th Street); then
(36) Proceed east on County Road J14 approximately 4 miles to a road known locally as County Road M41 (D Avenue); then
(37) Proceed south on County Road M41 approximately 1.7 miles to State Highway 48 at Essex, Iowa; then
(38) Proceed northeast then east on State Highway 48 approximately 1.2 miles to a road known locally as County Road M41 (E Avenue); then
(39) Proceed south on County Road M41 approximately 7 miles to State Highway 2 (210th Street); then
(40) Proceed east on State Highway 2 approximately 8 miles to a road known locally as M Avenue; then
(41) Proceed south on M Avenue, then east on a road known locally as County Road M60 (Maple Avenue), approximately 6.4 total miles, to a road known locally as County Road J52 (270th Street); then
(42) Proceed south in a straight line approximately 3.5 miles to the intersection of 304th Street and Maple Avenue (approximately 1.2 mile southwest of College Springs, Iowa), and then continue south on Maple Avenue for 0.5 mile to a road known locally as County Road J64 (310th Street); then
(43) Proceed west on County Road J64 approximately 4.5 miles to a road known locally as County Road M48 (Hackberry Avenue); then
(44) Proceed south on County Road M48 approximately 1.2 miles to the Iowa-Missouri State line at Blanchard, Iowa, and, crossing into Atchison County, Missouri, where County Road M48 becomes State Road M, and continue generally south on State Road M approximately 11.2 miles, crossing onto the Falls City, Nebraska-Missouri map, to U.S. Highway 136; then
(45) Proceed west on U.S. Highway 136 approximately 1 mile to State Road N; then
(46) Proceed south on State Road N 15 miles, crossing into Holt County, Missouri, to State Road C; then
(47) Proceed west then south on State Road C approximately 3 miles to U.S. Highway 59; then
(48) Proceed northwest on U.S. Highway 59 approximately 2 miles to the highway's first intersection with Interstate Highway 29 near Craig, Missouri; then
(49) Proceed generally north along Interstate Highway 29, crossing into Atchison County, Missouri, and onto the Nebraska City, Nebraska-Iowa-Missouri map, and continuing into Freemont County and Mills County, Iowa, then crossing onto the Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa map and into Pottawattamie County, Iowa; then crossing onto the Harlan, Iowa-Nebraska map and into Harrison County, Iowa; then continuing onto the Blair, Nebraska-Iowa map and into Monona County, Iowa; then crossing onto the Sioux City South, Iowa-Nebraska-South Dakota Map and into Woodbury County for a total of approximately 185 miles, to the intersection of Interstate Highway 29 with the Big Sioux River at Sioux City, Iowa; then
(50) Proceed generally north (upstream) along the meandering Big Sioux River, crossing onto the Sioux City North, Iowa-South Dakota-Nebraska map and into Plymouth County and Sioux County, Iowa, and continuing onto the Rock Rapids, Iowa-South Dakota map for a total of approximately 50 miles, returning to the beginning point.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to expand the approximately 5,360-square mile “Willamette Valley” viticultural area in northwestern Oregon by approximately 29 square miles. The established Willamette Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area do not lie within any other viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by August 17, 2015.
Please send your comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice of proposed rulemaking for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth the standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved American viticultural areas.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing the establishment of an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same procedures to request changes involving existing AVAs. Section 9.12(c) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12(c)) prescribes standards for petitions for modifying established AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the region within the proposed expansion area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the established AVA;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed expansion area;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed expansion area affecting viticulture, including climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the established AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed expansion area, with the boundary of the proposed expansion area clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed expansion area boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Steve Thomson, the executive vice president of King Estate Winery in Eugene, Oregon, proposing to expand the established “Willamette Valley” AVA in northwestern Oregon. The Willamette Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.90) was established by T.D. ATF-162, which published in the
The proposed expansion area is located in Lane County adjacent to the
The petition provides evidence that the proposed expansion area is associated with the established Willamette Valley AVA. King Estate Winery, where the petitioner is the executive vice president, is located within the proposed expansion area and has a “Eugene, Oregon” mailing address. The city of Eugene is located within the current boundaries of the Willamette Valley AVA. The petition also states that the two vineyards located within the proposed expansion area are included in the National Agricultural Statistics Service's annual compilation of vineyard statistics within the region called the “South Willamette Valley.”
Finally, the petition includes excerpts from wine lists from 11 different restaurants across the United States and one in Denmark that offer wines from the King Estate Winery. Although wines from the King Estate Winery use “Oregon” as the appellation of origin on their labels, the restaurant wine lists all describe the wine as coming from “Willamette,” “Willamette Valley,” or “Willamette, Oregon.” The petition states that these wine lists demonstrate that sellers and consumers currently associate the wines made in the proposed expansion area with the Willamette Valley AVA, even though the King Estate Winery does not market or label the wines as such.
The Willamette Valley AVA is a long, narrow region encompassing the Willamette River basin. The AVA is approximately 120 miles long and 60 miles wide. The current AVA boundary begins at the intersection of the Multnomah-Columbia County line and the Oregon-Washington boundary. The current boundary then proceeds southward, primarily following the meandering 1,000-foot elevation contour, into Lane County. South of the city of Eugene and north of the Siuslaw River, the current AVA boundary briefly leaves the 1,000-foot elevation contour near Panther Creek and follows a series of straight lines drawn between marked features on the USGS maps before reconnecting with the 1,000-foot elevation contour near the community of Lorane. The current boundary then follows the elevation contour as it meanders southward to Sharps Creek, to a point near the Lane-Douglas County line. The current boundary then follows the 1,000-foot elevation contour as it turns northward and returns to the Oregon-Washington boundary. According to T.D. ATF-162, the 1,000-foot elevation contour was chosen to form the majority of the AVA boundary because 1,000 feet is the maximum elevation for successful viticulture in this region of Oregon.
The boundary of the proposed expansion area would modify the portion of the current AVA boundary that follows the straight lines drawn between marked features on the USGS maps near Panther Creek, in the southwestern portion of the AVA. The proposed expansion boundary would not use straight lines between points but instead would continue to follow the 1,000-foot elevation contour to the Lane-Douglas county line. The proposed expansion area boundary would then proceed east along the Lane-Douglas county line until it rejoins the 1,000-foot elevation contour, and then proceed north-northeasterly along the elevation contour until it joins the current Willamette Valley AVA boundary near Lorane. The proposed expansion area would not extend south into Douglas County because the Douglas County line forms the northern boundary of the Umpqua River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.89), which has features that are distinctive from those of the Willamette Valley AVA.
Both the established Willamette Valley AVA and the proposed expansion area are surrounded to the west, east, and immediate south by high, steep mountains. To the east are the Cascade Mountains, and to the west are the Coast Range Mountains. To the south are the Calapooya Mountains, as well as the Umpqua River Valley.
As justification of the expansion area, which is based on similarities in distinguishing features, the expansion petition quotes the original Willamette Valley AVA petition, which stated, “[I]t is the intention of the Oregon Winegrowers Association to define this area as broadly as geographical data and viticultural experience will allow, so as not to stifle experimentation in new sites. * * * If any such sites come to light during the evaluation of this petition, we would urge they be included in the final description of the viticultural area.” According to the petition, the proposed expansion area contains the same climate, soils, and topography as the established Willamette Valley AVA. The expansion petition concludes that, had the two vineyards in the proposed expansion area existed at the time the Willamette Valley AVA was established, the proposed expansion area would have been included because the region shares characteristics similar to those of the established AVA. Those characteristics are discussed in detail below.
The petition compared the climate of the proposed expansion area to that of the established Willamette Valley AVA and the surrounding regions. The petition included a map generated using the PRISM mapping system
The PRISM data shows that during the growing season, the proposed expansion area and the six established AVAs within the larger Willamette Valley AVA all have lower average mean temperatures and average maximum temperatures and higher average minimum temperatures than the Umpqua Valley AVA. Growing season temperatures within the proposed expansion area are most similar to those in the Chehalem Mountains, Eola-Amity Hills, and McMinnville AVAs. Although the average GDD accumulations within the proposed expansion area are lower than those of the six established AVAs within the Willamette Valley AVA, they are more similar to those accumulations than to the higher GDD accumulations of the Umpqua Valley AVA.
The petition also included information on the growing season temperatures, rainfall amounts, and GDD accumulations from a private weather station at the King Estate Vineyard, within the proposed expansion area, and from regional weather stations located in Cottage Grove, Eugene, and Drain, Oregon. According to the petition, Cottage Grove is approximately 11 miles east of the King Estate Vineyard, Eugene is approximately 18 miles northeast of the vineyard, and Drain is just over 15 miles south of the vineyard. The data was collected from each station from April 1 through October 31 from 2008 through 2012. Although data from Eugene was included in the petition, the petitioner states that the data from that location is not a good representative of temperatures within the nearby portions of the Willamette Valley AVA because the weather station is located at the Eugene airport and represents a warmer urban-biased climate. Therefore, although all the climate data provided in the petition is available for viewing in Docket No. TTB-2015-0008, the Eugene data has been omitted from the following table:
The data shows that although precipitation amounts within the proposed expansion area are similar to the precipitation amounts for Cottage Grove (located within the Willamette Valley AVA) and Drain (located within the Umpqua Valley AVA), the proposed expansion area's GDD accumulations are more similar to those of the Willamette Valley location. Additionally, the proposed expansion area's average mean temperatures are more similar to that of the Willamette Valley location. The data from the King Estate Winery weather station, within the proposed expansion area, is also similar to that generated by the PRISM mapping system for the entire proposed expansion area, which is summarized in tables 1 and 2.
The petition included an analysis of the soils of the proposed expansion area. According to the analysis, the five most common soil series within the proposed expansion area are, from most to least common, the Bellpine, Willakenzie, Dupee, Jory, and Peavine series. These five soils cover approximately 74 percent of the proposed expansion area. These soils are also considered to be in the “xeric” moisture regime of soil classification. Xeric soils are common in regions with a “Mediterranean” climate, which consists of cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers. As a result of the warm, dry summers, xeric soils typically retain little water by the end of the growing season.
According to the petition, there are 23 soil series present within the Willamette Valley AVA, including all five of the most common soil series found within the proposed expansion area. The most common soils within the Willamette Valley AVA are from the Jory series, followed by soils of the Willakenzie series. Soils of the Bellpine, Dupee, and Peavine series are the ninth, eleventh, and twelfth most common soils within the Willamette Valley, respectively.
T.D. ATF-162, which established the Willamette Valley AVA, did not describe the soils of the AVA or the surrounding regions in great detail, only noting that the soils within the AVA were silty loams and clay loams, while the surrounding regions contained “mountain soils.” The proposed expansion petition describes the soils outside both the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA in more detail. According to the petition, the Peavine soils that are found both in the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA are also present in the surrounding regions outside the AVA and the proposed expansion area. However, the region outside the AVA also contains Blanchley, Honeygrove Complex, Bohanon, Preacher, Klickitat, Kirney, and Digger Complex soils, which are not found in either the proposed expansion region or the Willamette Valley AVA. Additionally, the petition notes that, with the exception of the Peavine soils, the soils outside the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA are all in the “udic” moisture regime of soil classification. Udic soils are common in humid climates where rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year. As a result, udic soils typically retain even amounts of moisture throughout the year, unlike the drier xeric soils of the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA.
The proposed expansion area is located on the leeward side of the Coast Range Mountains, which shelter the proposed expansion area from most of the cool, moist marine air that flows inward from the Pacific Ocean. The terrain of the proposed expansion area is comprised of foothills and valleys. Elevations within the area range from approximately 500 to 1,200 feet. Vineyards within the proposed expansion area are planted on hillsides at elevations between approximately 600 feet and 1,050 feet.
The topography of the proposed expansion area is similar to that of the established Willamette Valley AVA. The established AVA is composed of rolling hills and valleys between the Coast Range Mountains, which are to the west of the established AVA, and the Cascade Mountains, which are to its east. The Coast Range Mountains shelter the AVA from much of the marine air. Elevations within the AVA are between approximately 115 feet and 1,630 feet. Vineyards are planted on hillsides at elevations between 200 feet and 1,300 feet. Both the Willamette Valley AVA and the proposed expansion area are surrounded by the higher, more mountainous Cascade Mountains to the east of the two areas, the Calapooya Mountains to their south, and the Coast Range Mountains to their west.
Much of the land within the Willamette Valley AVA is part of the Willamette Valley watershed. However, the petition notes that there are portions of the AVA that drain into other rivers, including “significant acres of land” in the northern portion of the AVA that drain into the Columbia River. Other portions of the AVA drain into the Sandy River and the Siuslaw River. The proposed expansion area drains into both the Willamette River and the Siuslaw River. By contrast, the region south of the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA drains exclusively into the Umpqua River.
TTB concludes that the petition to expand the boundaries of the established Willamette Valley AVA merits consideration and public
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for expansion area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
To document the existing and proposed boundaries of the Willamette Valley AVA, the petitioner provided a copy of the required map, and it is listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
The approval of the proposed expansion of the Willamette Valley AVA would not affect any other existing viticultural area. The expansion of the Willamette Valley AVA would allow vintners to use “Willamette Valley” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the proposed expansion area if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should expand the Willamette Valley AVA as proposed. TTB is specifically interested in receiving comments on the similarity of the proposed expansion area to the established Willamette Valley AVA, as well as the differences between the proposed expansion area and the areas outside the Willamette Valley AVA. Please provide specific information in support of your comments.
You may submit comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Your comments must reference Notice No. 152 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice of proposed rulemaking, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0008 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice of proposed rulemaking, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(b)
(4) “Letz Creek, OR” (revised 1984).
(c) * * *
(11) Northeast, then southeast along the 1,000 foot contour line approximately 12 miles to its intersection with the R5W/R6W range line;
(12) South along the R5W/R6W range line approximately 0.25 mile to the intersection with the 1,000 foot contour line;
(13) Generally southeast along the meandering 1,000 foot contour line, crossing onto the Letz Creek map, to a point on the 1,000 foot contour line located due north of the intersection of Siuslaw River Road and Fire Road;
(14) South in a straight line approximately 0.55 mile, crossing over the Siuslaw River and the intersection of Siuslaw River Road and Fire Road, to the 1,000 foot contour line;
(15) Generally southeast along the meandering 1,000 foot contour line, crossing onto the Roseburg, Oregon map, to the intersection of the 1,000 foot contour line with the Lane/Douglas County line;
(16) East along the Lane/Douglas County line approximately 3.8 miles to the intersection with the 1,000 foot contour line just east of the South Fork of the Siuslaw River;
(17) Generally north, then northeast along the 1,000 foot contour line around Spencer Butte, and then generally south to a point along the Lane/Douglas County line 0.5 mile north of Interstate Highway 99;
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of hearing and extension of comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) will hold a public hearing on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) to consider issues attendant to adopting a regulation concerning its proposed conflict of interest rule and related proposed prohibited transaction exemptions. The Department also is extending the date by which comments may be submitted on the proposed rule and proposed new and amended exemptions. Public comments on the proposals may now be submitted to the Department on or before July 21, 2015.
The comment periods for the proposed rule and six proposed prohibited transaction exemptions published on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21928, 21960, 22004, 22034, 22010, 22021, and 21989) have been extended, and comments on the proposals must be received on or before July 21, 2015. The hearing will be held on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) beginning each day at 9 a.m. EDT.
The hearing will be held in the César E. Chávez Memorial Auditorium at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. You may submit a request to testify at the hearing by any of the following methods:
• Email to
•
You may submit comments on the proposed rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions by the methods identified below.
For the proposed rule, identified by RIN 1210-AB32, by any of the following methods:
For the proposed prohibited transactions exemptions, identified by RIN 1210-ZA25, by any of the following methods:
Fred Wong, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), (202) 693-8510. This is not a toll-free number.
EBSA published in the
Since publication in the
In order to ensure that interested persons have sufficient time to share their views on the proposed rule and proposed new and amended prohibited transaction exemptions, EBSA is extending the comment period for submitting comments until July 21, 2015.
The
The hearing on this proposed rulemaking will be held on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) beginning each day at 9 a.m. EDT, in the César E. Chávez Memorial Auditorium of the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, at 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. The hearing will be transcribed and the comment period will remain open after the conclusion of the hearing until 14 days after the official transcript is posted on EBSA's Web site. Thus, with the 15-day extension of the public comment period announced in this document, the initial comment period will be more than 90 days and, following the public hearing and opening of the comment period until 14 days after the hearing transcript is posted, we anticipate the opportunity for public testimony and comments may be more than 140 days in total.
Persons interested in presenting testimony and answering questions at this public hearing must submit, by 5:00 p.m. EDT, July 24, 2015, a written request to testify and an outline of the issues they would like to address at the hearing. In addition to the outline, all requests to testify must clearly identify: (1) The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness; (2) the organization or organizations represented, if any; (3) contact information (address, telephone, and email), and (4) an indication of whether the person or organization submitted a written comment on the proposal, and, if so, the date of the comment letter. The hearing will be open to the general public. Any individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact EBSA after submitting their written request to testify concerning the scheduling of their testimony.
In addition to testimony on the proposed rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions, a portion of the hearing will focus specifically on the Department's Regulatory Impact Analysis, which addresses the effects of conflicts of interest in the market for retirement investment advice and the need for regulation, the anticipated economic effects of the proposal, and the relative merits of certain regulatory alternatives. Thus, a portion of the hearing will be dedicated to testimony from panels of witnesses who specifically request an opportunity to present testimony focused on just the Department's Regulatory Impact Analysis. Persons or organizations who want to have a witness testify during this portion of the hearing should so state in their request to testify and should limit the outline for that witness' testimony accordingly.
Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify, and in light of the limited time and space available for the public hearing, EBSA may need to limit the number of those testifying in order to provide an opportunity for the presentation of the broadest array of points of view on all aspects of the proposal during the period allotted for the hearing. The Department expects to organize the hearing into panels of witnesses with three or more witnesses on each panel. The Department will give preference in assigning panel slots to those persons or organizations who have submitted substantive comment letters regarding the proposals by the close of the comment period on July 21. The Department will also give preference, to
To facilitate the receipt and processing of requests to testify, EBSA encourages interested persons to submit their request to testify at the hearing and outlines by email to
EBSA will prepare an agenda indicating the order of presentation of oral testimony. In the absence of special circumstances, each presenter will be allotted ten (10) minutes in which to complete his or her presentation. Those individuals who make oral comments and present testimony at the hearing should be prepared to answer questions regarding their information and comments. Those requesting to testify also should be prepared to participate as part of a panel. Information about the agenda for the hearing will be posted on
The hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis. Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in seating. To expedite visitor security access entrance into the building, individuals planning to attend the hearing can provide contact information by email to
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) concerning the proposed Conflict of Interest Rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions published in the
Notice is hereby given that the period for submitting comments on the proposed Conflict of Interest Rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency EPA proposes to modify the use restrictions of the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas, respectively. These sites are EPA designated ocean dumping sites for the disposal of suitable dredged material. This proposed action is being taken because there are current restrictions in place with language that prevent disposal of suitable dredged material from locations other than the federal channels. The United States Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District has requested EPA amend the restrictions to allow disposal of suitable dredged material from the vicinity of federal navigation channels to alleviate pressure on the capacity of their upland dredged material placement areas, when necessary.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OW-2015-0121, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ-EC), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-8335, fax number (214) 665-6689; email address
Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act,
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H, Section 228.11) state that modifications in disposal site use which involve withdrawal of disposal sites from use or permanent changes in the total specified quantities or types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site will be made by promulgation in this Part 228. This site modification of types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site are being published as proposed rulemaking in accordance with § 228.11(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits changes in the total specified quantities or types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site based upon changed circumstances concerning use of the site.
The proposed modification of the use restrictions on the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof: or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This Proposed Rule should have minimal impact on State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Consequently, EPA has determined that this Proposed Rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866.
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The modification of the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs broadens the use of the sites providing additional options for dredged material placement in the Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas vicinities.
For these reasons, the Regional Administrator certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This Proposed Rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in any year. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this Proposed Rule.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
This Proposed Rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This Final Rule does not have Tribal implications, as defined in Executive Order 13175.
This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
This Proposed Rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This Proposed Rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to determine whether the Proposed Rule would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area. The Proposed Rule would not significantly affect any low-income or minority population.
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 228 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
(j) * * *
(12) * * *
(vi)
(13) * * *
(vi)
(14) * * *
(vi)
(15) * * *
(vi)
(17) * * *
(vi)
(18) * * *
(vi)
(19) * * *
(vi)
(20) * * *
(vi)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The NTSB proposes a new subpart within part 800 of its regulations to outline the NTSB's rulemaking procedures.
Comments must be submitted by July 20, 2015.
A copy of this notice, published in the
David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.
On June 25, 2012, the NTSB published a proposed rule indicating its intent to undertake a review of all NTSB regulations to ensure they are updated. 77 FR 37865. The NTSB initiated this review in accordance with Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). The purpose of Executive Order 13579 is to ensure all agencies adhere to the key principles found in Executive Order 13563,
This Notice proposes the addition of a new subpart within part 800: Subpart C, titled “Procedures for Adoption of Rules.” Subpart C describes the agency's rulemaking procedures. As stated above, the NTSB has undertaken a comprehensive review of all its regulations, in order to update them and ensure they accurately reflect the NTSB's current practices and contain correct information. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive review, the NTSB has also proposed and promulgated several changes to part 821 of 49 CFR (Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings) and part 826 of 49 CFR (Rules Implementing the Equal Access to Justice Act). These recent rulemaking activities point out a need for procedural rules describing the NTSB's rulemaking practices. For example, this new subpart includes a section concerning interim final rules, and direct final rulemaking authority. The NTSB believes these sections will be beneficial in assisting public understanding of agency procedures for all types of rulemaking projects.
Many of the new sections we propose are self-explanatory. As the Plain Writing Act of 2010, Public Law 111-274, 5 U.S.C. 301 note, and Executive Orders 12866 at § 1(b)(12) and 12988 at § 3(b)(2) require, the NTSB's proposed language in these new sections is clear and unambiguous. The NTSB has used regulations from the Department of Transportation as a model for the proposed text in this NPRM.
The NTSB proposes § 800.30 to clarify the rules within proposed subpart C will only apply to rulemakings the NTSB initiates under its enabling statute, at 49 U.S.C. 1101-1155. The NTSB notes the agency's specific rulemaking authority is codified at 49 U.S.C. 1113(f); however, we propose a reference to sections 1101-1155 to provide for the possibility of enactment of rulemaking authority within other sections of the NTSB's authorizing legislation.
The NTSB proposes § 800.31 to notify the public of the location of publicly available rulemaking documents. The NTSB utilizes
Proposed §§ 800.32, 800.33, and 800.34 describe the manner in which the NTSB initiates rulemaking projects, the NTSB's practice of complying with the Administrative Procedure Act's informal rulemaking procedures by publishing notices of proposed rulemaking, and the expected contents of notices of proposed rulemaking. Proposed § 800.33 includes a phrase indicating the NTSB may not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking if the agency finds “notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” and the agency “incorporates that finding and a brief statement of the reasons for it in the rule.” As discussed below, such a procedure is permissible under the Administrative Procedure Act. While the NTSB does not anticipate engaging in such a procedure with frequency, the agency believes it suitable to provide for the exception in the text of § 800.33. The NTSB also proposes including a reference to the Administrative Procedure Act, at 5 U.S.C. 551, because the statute imposes specific procedures and requirements on agencies who engage in rulemaking.
The NTSB proposes § 800.34 to inform the public of what each notice of proposed rulemaking will contain. For example, this section will require the NTSB provide specific information concerning the availability of rulemaking documents, and dates that apply to comment periods. The NTSB believes this section will ensure the NTSB's notices of proposed rulemaking consistently contain the information necessary to ensure the public may participate in the rulemaking process with ease.
The NTSB understands providing for the opportunity for public participation in rulemaking is a hallmark of the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the NTSB proposes the addition of regulations describing the procedures for public participation. In § 800.35, the NTSB proposes text stating any interested person may participate in a rulemaking project by submitting written comments. The NTSB emphasizes this invitation is open to all interested individuals. The NTSB also proposes a provision stating the agency may exercise its discretion to invite any interested person to participate in rulemaking procedures. Such an invitation might include the NTSB identifying organizations that might be able to offer expertise in a specific subject matter, and requesting those organizations consider submitting written comments with relevant information. Maintaining discretion to engage in such a practice will ensure the NTSB gains the most relevant, helpful information in promulgating its regulations.
The NTSB also proposes a regulation specifying procedures regarding petitions for extension of time to submit comments, in § 800.36. The NTSB proposes a requirement stating the NTSB must receive such petitions no later than 10 days before the end of the comment period stated in the notice, unless a petitioner establishes good cause exists to extend the time for comments. If the NTSB grants a petition and extends the comment period, the proposed version of § 800.36 will require the NTSB to publish a notice of the extension in the
The NTSB also proposes a statement in § 800.38 that the agency will consider
The NTSB proposes including in § 800.39 the statement that the agency may initiate any further rulemaking proceedings it finds necessary or desirable. In this proposed rule, we provide the examples of inviting interested persons to make oral arguments; inviting participation in conferences with the agency and interested persons; inviting appearance at informal hearings presided over by officials designated by the agency; or participating “in any other proceeding to assure informed administrative action and to protect the public interest.” The NTSB notes, for such examples, the agency would ensure notes and/or a transcript of the proceedings would be kept. In general, the NTSB would include such items in the rulemaking record in the Federal Docket Management System. The NTSB's inclusion of proposed § 800.39 acknowledges that public participation is critical to its rulemaking process and such participation may take different forms. In addition to initiating various types of rulemaking procedures, the NTSB also is mindful that, with regard to some rules, issuing a written interpretation clarifying or explaining the applicability of a rule may be beneficial. The NTSB may issue such a written interpretation as a Notice published in the
The NTSB proposes §§ 800.40 (“Hearings”) and 800.41 (“Adoption of final rules”) stating the NTSB will only hold “informal” hearings, rather than “formal” hearings specified in 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. At any such informal hearing, the agency will designate a representative, such as the agency's General Counsel, to conduct the hearing. For clarification, the NTSB notes such rulemaking hearings are distinctive from those described in parts 821 (Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings) and 845 (Rules of Practice in Transportation: Accident/Incident Hearings and Reports) of this chapter. Proposed § 800.41 describes internal agency procedures for adopting and issuing a Final Rule: The program office works with the NTSB's Office of General Counsel to draft the Final Rule and present it to the Board for consideration. If the Board chooses to adopt the Final Rule, the agency will publish the Final Rule in the
The NTSB proposes § 800.42 concerning petitions for rulemaking, which any interested person may submit. The proposed text specifies where petitioners must send the petition and requires the petition specify the rule the petitioner seeks to have amended or repealed. Conversely, the proposed section indicates a petition for rulemaking may propose the existence of a new rule. The petition must explain the petitioner's interest in the action he or she requests, as well as information and arguments to support the action sought.
Section 800.43 proposes text describing how the NTSB will handle petitions for rulemaking. The proposed text states the NTSB will not hold hearings, arguments, or other proceedings on issues raised in the petition, unless the NTSB specifies otherwise. The proposed text of the section states the agency may grant or deny a petition for rulemaking, and will notify the petitioner of its decision.
The NTSB proposes sections concerning direct final rulemaking and interim final rules. The NTSB proposes to use the direct final rulemaking procedure to streamline the rulemaking process where the rule is noncontroversial and the agency does not expect adverse comment.
Direct final rulemaking will reduce the time and resources necessary to develop, review, clear, and publish separate proposed and final rules for rulemakings the agency expects to be noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment. Several federal agencies use this process, including various Department of Transportation operating administrations.
In engaging in the direct final rulemaking procedure for certain rules, the NTSB would first determine whether a particular rulemaking is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse comments based on its experience in previous rulemaking projects. Adverse comments are those comments that are critical of the rule, suggest that the rule should not be adopted, or suggest a change to the rule. The NTSB would not consider adverse comments to be those outside the scope of the rule or those suggesting the rule's policy or requirements should or should not be extended to other agency programs outside the scope of the rule.
After making the determination a rule would be appropriate for direct final rulemaking, the NTSB would publish the rule as a direct final rule in the
Proposed § 800.44 sets forth the process outlined above and describes noncontroversial rules appropriate for final rulemaking. Noncontroversial rules include technical clarifications or corrections to existing rules, incorporation by reference, rules that affect internal procedures of the NTSB, such as filing requirements, and rules governing inspection and copying of documents. The NTSB may also use direct final rulemaking for a particular rule if similar rules had been previously proposed and published without adverse comment. Even if a rulemaking falls into one of the above categories, if
Finally, the NTSB proposes § 800.45 to describe interim final rules. The NTSB may issue an interim final rule, which is an immediately effective rule, when it is in the public interest to promulgate an effective rule while keeping the rulemaking open for further refinement. The NTSB's proposed text includes the examples of when “normal procedures for notice and comment prior to issuing an effective rule are not required, minor changes to the final rule may be necessary after the interim rule has been in place for some time, or the interim rule only implements portions of a proposed rule, while other portions of the proposed rule are still under development.” This list of examples is not exhaustive; indeed, in 2012, the NTSB issued an interim final rule to amend certain procedural rules related to aviation certificate enforcement appeals. 77 FR 63242 (Oct. 16, 2012). Such rules needed to take effect quickly, as the changes were required by the enactment of Pilot's Bill of Rights. Public Law 112-53, 126 Stat. 1159 (Aug. 3, 2012). As a result, the NTSB utilized the interim final rulemaking process to ensure compliance with the legislative changes. The NTSB believes the proposed text of § 800.45 explains the interim final rulemaking process to ensure the public is aware of the process and when the NTSB might issue interim final rules.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB proposes to amend 49 CFR part 800 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1113(f), unless otherwise noted.
This subpart prescribes rulemaking procedures that apply to the issuance, amendment, and revocation of rules pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1101-1155.
Information and data deemed relevant by the NTSB relating to rulemaking actions, including notices of proposed rulemaking; comments received in response to notices; petitions for rulemaking and reconsideration; denials of petitions for rulemaking; and final rules are maintained in the NTSB's public reading room, located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-2003.
The NTSB may initiate rulemaking either on its own motion or on petition by any interested person after a determination that grant of the petition is advisable. The NTSB may also consider the recommendations of other agencies of the United States.
Unless the NTSB, for good cause, finds notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates that finding and a brief statement of the reasons for it in the rule, a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued and interested persons are invited to participate in the rulemaking proceedings under applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551.
(a) Each notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the
(b) Each notice includes:
(1) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the proposed rulemaking proceeding;
(2) A reference to the authority under which it is issued;
(3) A description of the subjects and issues involved or the substance and terms of the proposed rule;
(4) A statement of the time within which written comments must be submitted; and
(5) A statement of how and to what extent interested persons may participate in the proceedings.
(a) Any interested person may participate in rulemaking proceeding by submitting comments in writing containing information, views or arguments.
(b) In its discretion, the agency may invite any interested person to participate in the rulemaking procedures described in this subpart.
A petition for extension of the time to submit comments must be received not later than 10 days before the end of the comment period stated in the notice. The petition must be submitted to: General Counsel, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-2003. The filing of the petition does not automatically extend the time for petitioner's comments. Such a petition is granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension, and if the extension is consistent with the public interest. If an extension is granted, it is granted to all persons, and the NTSB will publish a notice of the extension of the comment period in the
All written comments shall be in English. Unless otherwise specified in a notice requesting comments, comments may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit. Any commenter shall submit as a part of his or her written comments all material he or she considers relevant to any statement of fact made in the comment. Commenters should avoid incorporation by reference. However, if incorporation by reference is necessary, the incorporated material shall be identified with respect to document and page. The NTSB may reject comments if they are frivolous, abusive, or repetitious. The NTSB may also reject comments filed electronically
All timely comments are considered before final action is taken on a rulemaking proposal. Late filed comments may be considered to the extent practicable.
The NTSB may initiate any further rulemaking proceedings it finds necessary or desirable. For example, interested persons may be invited to make oral arguments, to participate in conferences between the Board or a representative of the Board and interested persons at which minutes of the conference are kept, to appear at informal hearings presided over by officials designated by the Board, at which a transcript or minutes are kept, or participate in any other proceeding to assure informed administrative action and to protect the public interest.
(a) Sections 556 and 557 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to hearings held under this part. Unless otherwise specified, hearings held under this part are informal, fact-finding proceedings, at which there are no formal pleadings or adverse parties. Any rule issued in a case in which an informal hearing is held is not necessarily based exclusively on the record of the hearing.
(b) The NTSB designates a representative to conduct any hearing held under this part. The General Counsel or a designated member of his or her staff may serve as legal officer at the hearing.
Final rules are prepared by representatives of the office concerned and the Office of the General Counsel. The rule is then submitted to the Board for its consideration. If the Board adopts the rule, it is published in the
(a) Any interested person may petition the Chairman to establish, amend, or repeal a rule.
(b) Each petition filed under this section must:
(1) Be submitted in duplicate to the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-0003;
(2) Set forth the text or substance of the rule or amendment proposed, or specify the rule the petitioner seeks to have repealed, as the case may be;
(3) Explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested; and
(4) Contain any information and arguments available to the petitioner to support the action sought.
(a) Unless the NTSB otherwise specifies, no public hearing, argument, or other proceeding is held directly on a petition before its disposition under this section.
(b)
(c)
(d)
A direct final rule makes regulatory changes and states those changes will take effect on a specified date unless the NTSB receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment by the date specified in the direct final rule published in the
(a)
(1) Make non-substantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules;
(2) Incorporate by reference the latest or otherwise updated versions of technical or industry standards;
(3) Affect internal NTSB procedures;
(4) Update existing forms; and
(5) Make minor changes to rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements, such as a change in reporting period (for example, from quarterly to annually) or eliminating a type of data collection no longer necessary.
(b)
(1) Comments recommending another rule change, unless the commenter states the direct final rule will be ineffective without the change;
(2) Comments outside the scope of the rule and comments suggesting the rule's policy or requirements should or should not be extended to other topics outside the scope of the rule;
(3) Comments in support of the rule; or
(4) Comments requesting clarification.
(c)
(d)
(2) If the NTSB withdraws a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, the NTSB may issue a notice of proposed rulemaking if it decides to pursue the rulemaking.
(a) An interim rule may be issued when it is in the public interest to promulgate an effective rule while keeping the rulemaking open for further refinement. For example, an interim rule may be issued in instances when normal procedures for notice and comment prior to issuing an effective rule are not required, minor changes to the final rule may be necessary after the interim rule has been in place for some time, or the interim rule only implements portions of a proposed rule, while other portions of the proposed rule are still under development.
(b) An interim rule will be published in the
Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.
Notice of Request for Nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is soliciting nominations for membership for the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (the “Committee”).
Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before July 17, 2015.
Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0170; (202) 720-6350; email:
Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to: The Honorable Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 0601, Washington, DC 20250, Attn: Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers. Nomination packages may also be faxed to (202) 720-7704.
The Committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters broadly affecting new farmers and ranchers including strategies, policies, and programs that will enhance opportunities and create new farming and ranching operations. The Committee will consider Department goals and objectives necessary to implement prior recommendations. The Committee will develop and recommend an overall framework and strategies to encompass principles that leverage and maximize existing programs, and create and test new program opportunities.
In this notice, we are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from among ranching and farming producers (industry), related government, State, and Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations, and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at
The Secretary will select up to 20 members from among those organizations and individuals solicited, in order to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee, pursuant to Section 5 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (Pub.L.No. 102-554), in accordance with the FACA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulation 1041-1. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) is announcing a meeting of the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee's (BFRAC) Subcommittee on Land Tenure (Subcommittee). The Subcommittee is being convened to consider issues involving access to land, farm business transition and land tenure. The members will perform preliminary work on recommendations that will be submitted to the parent committee. The BFRAC will prepare recommendations for USDA Secretary Vilsack's consideration in making policy decisions affecting land tenure during its next public meeting.
The subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Monday through Wednesday, June 22-24, 2015, from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. CST. Tuesday, June 23, from 10:30-3:30 p.m. CST has been set aside for public comments. All persons wishing to make comments during this meeting must check in between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. CST on June 23, at the registration table. All public commenters will be allowed a maximum of three minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than what can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public meeting timeframe, speakers will be scheduled on a first-come basis.
Public written comments for the Subcommittee's consideration may be submitted by close of business on June 19, 2015, to Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0170, Phone (202) 720-6350, Fax (202) 720-7704, Email:
Members of the public may submit written statements to the Land Tenure Subcommittee at any time. Written submissions are encouraged to either be less than one page in length, or be accompanied by an executive summary and a summary of policy initiatives to include, but not limited to, the following topics:
1. How are farmers currently making farm business transitions and land or asset transfers between generations and non-family owners?
2. How do changes in agricultural land tenure, such as increased reliance on leasing, impact the ability of USDA to serve the needs of America's farm families?
3. How do changes in land tenure affect the access and availability of farmland for new and beginning farmers?
4. How do we help farms plan for transitions in advance and best support those who inherit farmland?
This public advisory committee meeting will be held at Drake University, Old Main, Levitt Hall, 25th and University Ave., Des Moines, Iowa 50311. On-street parking and on-site parking is available. There is also a drop-off area directly in front of the entrance to the property. There will be signs directing attendees to the meeting room.
Questions should be directed to Phyllis Morgan, Executive Assistant, OAO, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Whitten Bldg., 520-A, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-6350, Fax: (202) 720-7136, email:
The BFRAC members met in Austin, Texas, on September 23-24, 2014, to deliberate upon the final set of recommendations for the Secretary on issues involving communications, service, and advocacy in identifying barriers for beginning farmers and ranchers. They also considered issues around lending and credit in parsing statistics generated by USDA. Since that meeting, the Secretary tasked the BFRAC with providing recommendations on access to land, farm business transition, and land tenure. Please visit our Web site at:
The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting by June 19, 2015. You may pre-register for the public meeting by submitting an email to
The agenda is as follows: Day 1: Closed Session. Day 2: Subcommittee discussions, public comments, and subcommittee deliberations. Day 3: Closed Session. Please visit the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Web site for the full agenda. All agenda topics and documents will be made available to the public at:
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 20, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of Hass avocados from Peru into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0020, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of Hass avocados from Peru, contact Mr. Juan (Tony) Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
Section 319.56-50 of the regulations provides the requirements for the importation of Hass avocados from Peru into the continental United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates, trust funds, workplans, recordkeeping, production site registration, monitoring and oversight of registered production sites, packinghouse registration, survey protocols, box markings, and shipping documents with the official registration number of the place of production and identification of packing shed.
When comparing the regulations to the information collection activities that were previously approved, we found that production site and packinghouse registration, box markings, and the time it takes for businesses to escort inspectors for the required monitoring were omitted from the previous collection. We also adjusted the burden hours for the trust fund and workplan activities to more accurately capture the time needed for these activities. Lastly, we increased the estimated annual number of respondents from two to eight to reflect an increase in trade and additional companies participating in the export of Hass avocados from Peru into the continental United States.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations to prevent the spread of citrus greening and its vector, Asian citrus psyllid, to noninfested areas of United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of citrus greening and its vector, Asian citrus psyllid, contact Dr. Mary Palm, National Coordinator for Citrus Pest Programs, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2069. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
Citrus greening, also known as Huanglongbing disease of citrus, is considered to be one of the most serious citrus diseases in the world. Citrus greening is a bacterial disease that attacks the vascular system of host plants. This bacterial pathogen can be transmitted by grafting and, under laboratory conditions, by parasitic plants. The pathogen can also be transmitted by two insect vectors in the family Psyllidae, one of which is
Under the regulations in “Subpart—Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid” (7 CFR 301.76 through 301.76-11), APHIS restricts the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to control the artificial spread of citrus greening and ACP to noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations contain requirements that involve information collection activities, including a compliance agreement, limited permit, Federal certificate, recordkeeping, labeling statement, the application of a tag to the consignee's waybill, 72-hour inspection notification, and cancellation of certificates, permits, and compliance agreements.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Commodity Credit Corporation, Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Record of decision.
This notice presents a summary of the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the alternative selected for implementation from the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP is a voluntary program that supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive agricultural land. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers CRP on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The ROD was signed on April 17, 2015, but will not be implemented for at least 30 days following publication of this notice.
The CRP SPEIS, including appendices and this ROD, are available on the FSA Environmental Compliance Web site at:
Requests for copies of the Final SPEIS and this ROD may be obtained from Nell Fuller at
Nell Fuller, National Environmental Compliance Manager; phone: (202) 720-6853.
FSA prepared a Final SPEIS for CRP and a Notice of Availability was published in the
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service;
• USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture;
• U.S. Forest Service;
• State forestry agencies;
• Local soil and water conservation districts; and
• Other non-federal providers of technical assistance.
Producers can enroll in CRP using one of two procedures:
(1) Offer lands for General Sign-up enrollment during specific sign-up periods and compete with other offers nationally, based upon the Environmental Benefits Index; or
(2) Enroll environmentally desirable land to be devoted to certain conservation practices (CPs) under CRP Continuous Sign-up provisions, if certain eligibility requirements are met, or by enrolling eligible land under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a federal-state partnership under CRP.
As of September 2014, there were nearly 25.5 million acres enrolled in the
Under the Proposed Action, as defined in the SPEIS, FSA would implement changes to the CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill, which extends the enrollment authority for the CRP to 2018, as well as other discretionary measures designed to improve the functionality and conservation benefits of CRP. The CRP SPEIS tiers from the CRP Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and associated ROD completed in 2010. The SPEIS analyzed the impacts associated with implementing the changes to CRP and in developing new regulations. The No Action Alternative (continuation of current CRP to include those non-discretionary changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill) was also analyzed, and provides a management and environmental baseline.
After reviewing comments from interested individuals and other State and Federal agencies, FSA decided to implement changes to CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill, which extends the enrollment authority for CRP to 2018, and discretionary measures designed to improve the functionality and conservation benefits of CRP, as well as other changes described in the Proposed Action, with one exception and one clarification. The exception is that authorizing emergency haying or grazing on CP 25, “Rare and Declining Habitat,” during severe drought conditions will not be implemented. This decision was made after comparing the overall environmental impacts and other relevant information, including feedback received, with regard to the reasonable alternatives considered in the CRP SPEIS. The clarification was that FSA intends to use Primary Nesting Season (PNS) provisions that are currently in place to clarify the language provided in the 2014 Farm Bill for birds that are economically significant, in significant decline, or conserved in accordance with Federal or State law (see 16 U.S.C. 3833(b)(5)(B)). FSA will continue to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address any need to amend PNS dates. The following briefly describes the purpose and need for the proposed programmatic changes and the alternatives considered.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement programmatic changes to the CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill and other discretionary program provisions. The need for the Proposed Action is to fulfill the FSA's responsibility to administer CRP while improving CRP's functionality and maintaining its conservation benefits.
Some elements of the 2014 Farm Bill are non-discretionary, meaning implementation is mandatory and specifically required by the 2014 Farm Bill. As FSA has no decision-making authority over these non-discretionary aspects of the 2014 Farm Bill, they are assessed in the SPEIS as part of the No Action Alternative. Other elements of the 2014 Farm Bill provide overall guidance, but details of implementation are left to FSA's discretion. These discretionary aspects of the 2014 Farm Bill form the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition, as described in the Proposed Action Alternative, FSA proposes to implement additional discretionary measures for targeting enrollment and to expand the flexibility of emergency haying and grazing.
The changes in the 2014 Farm Bill that are administrative in nature, would not result in major changes to the administration of CRP, or have been addressed in other environmental assessments and eliminated from detailed analysis, are described in the first table. A summary of the proposed changes to CRP and how the changes are addressed in the SPEIS as part of the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action Alternative are described in the second table.
Public involvement began with the notice announcing a “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Conservation Reserve Program: Request for Comments” published in the
A notice announcing the availability of the Draft SPEIS was published in the
Eighteen comments were received during the Draft SPEIS comment period. Those 18 comments included 75 issues to be considered in the Final SPEIS. A Comment Summary Report was prepared and is included as an appendix in the CRP SPEIS. The report provides additional detail on the Draft SPEIS comment process, a copy of the NOA, copies of all public meeting materials, and responses to all 75 substantive issues and how they were addressed in the Final SPEIS.
The NOA of the Final SPEIS was published in the
The Final SPEIS evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Based upon the analyses and conclusions presented in the Draft and Final SPEISs, FSA has determined that the Proposed Action is environmentally responsible and reasonable to implement, and no significant negative impacts would occur. Anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts are discussed below for each of the elements of the Proposed Action.
CRP establishes or restores vegetation to meet the CRP goals of improving surface water and groundwater quality, controlling soil erosion, and enhancing wildlife habitat. Enrolling land in CRP would be expected to benefit vegetation,
Installation and maintenance of CPs could create temporary, short-term negative impacts while the work was ongoing to resources, including vegetation, wildlife, protected species, soils, surface and groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, and air quality. However, all activities would be specified in Conservation Plans, designed by NRCS, which reflect local conditions and needs for each tract of land enrolled. Once CPs are established, long-term beneficial impacts to resources would be realized.
Managed harvesting would be allowed to occur no more frequently than once every 3 years, but not less frequently than once in 5 years. This would require four states (California, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada) that currently allow managed harvesting once every 10 years to have more frequent managed harvesting on new contracts where managed harvesting would be used to maintain CRP. The 2014 Farm Bill allows for the State Technical Committees (STCs) to establish routine grazing frequencies of not more than once every 2 years. More frequent harvesting and grazing could reduce the growing period between harvests, which may cause short-term negative impacts to some types of vegetation, potentially affecting wildlife habitat, soil stability, and any adjacent wetlands, floodplains, or surface waters. Activities with direct impacts would vary by ecoregion and species composition. Long-term benefits of harvesting and grazing include maintaining early succession stages, and improving species diversity, composition, and function. Wildlife adapted to early successional habitats could benefit from more frequent harvesting and grazing. Grazing could negatively affect wildlife through displacement or competition for food resources. Both grazing and haying could result in direct mortality to some wildlife species. Protected species are not expected to be affected as site specific Environmental Evaluations on Conservation Plans would determine the presence of protected species and ensure no impacts occur. No effects to groundwater, air quality, recreation, or socioeconomic resources are anticipated. When performed in accordance with established guidelines, managed harvesting can be an effective tool for maintaining early successional stages of vegetative communities.
Consecutive years of emergency haying or grazing on the same acreage would reduce the growth period and could result in long-term negative impacts to some types of vegetation, in turn affecting wildlife. Impacts to wildlife could also include direct mortality and competition for food resources. No impacts to protected species are expected due to use of site-specific Environmental Evaluations. As with managed harvesting and routine grazing, short-term impacts to soils could occur from reduced vegetation growth affecting the stability of soils. Short-term impacts to surface waters, floodplains, and wetlands could occur from increased runoff, however, adherence to site-specific NRCS Conservation Plans and oversight by STC would reduce the potential for long-term impacts to these resources. No impacts to groundwater are anticipated. In the short-term, consecutive years of emergency haying and grazing could reduce the carbon sequestration potential of CRP vegetation. Socioeconomic benefits would result from enabling producers to maintain herds during severe droughts.
No significant impacts would occur from implementation of the Proposed Action and no significant adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Potential negative impacts will be minimized by employment of best management practices specified in Conservation Plans and through the use of site-specific Environmental Evaluations.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Golden Pond, Kentucky. The Board is authorized under Section 450 of the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculutre on the means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area; and environmental education. Additional Board information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015.
All Board meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administration Building, 100 Van Morgran Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Linda L. Taylor, Board Coordinator, by phone at 270-924-2002 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
(1) Discuss Environmental Education; and
(2) Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.
The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members. Written comments are invited and should be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; and must be received by July 8, 2015, in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Business Meeting.
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
This meeting is open to the public.
Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice; Commerce/Department-12, OIG Investigative Records.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records entitled Commerce/Department-12, OIG Investigative Records.
The notice of proposed amendment to this system of records was published in the
The system of records becomes effective on June 18, 2015.
For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to the OIG Office of Counsel, Room 7896, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; by email to
The OIG Office of Counsel, Room 7896, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; by email to
On May 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records entitled Commerce/Department-12, OIG Investigative Records (80 FR 26217). No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective June 18, 2015.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the estimated subsidy rates,
Effective date June 18, 2015.
Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone: (202) 482-0176.
The Department published the
The products covered by this investigation are certain passenger tires from the PRC. The products covered by the investigation are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from numerous interested parties, which we have summarized and addressed in the accompanying Final Decision Memorandum.
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Final Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
The Department notes that, in making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we applied adverse facts available.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the
In the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for GITI Fujian and Cooper, the only two individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise that participated in this investigation.
In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents with those companies' export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all others rate should exclude zero and
Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the all others rate by weight-averaging the rates of GITI Fujian and Cooper because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, and consistent with the Department's practice where such risk exists, for the all others rate, we calculated a weight average of GITI Fujian's and Cooper's rates using publicly ranged data.
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of this investigation is passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Tires covered by this investigation may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars.
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks.
Suffix letter designations:
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service.
All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the
Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following types of tires:
(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;
(2) new pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a size that is not listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the
(3) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;
(4) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in Table PCT-1B (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the
(b) the designation “T” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:
(a) The size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the
(b) the designation “ST” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the
(e) either
(i) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by
(ii) the tire's speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire's maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either
(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the
(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the
(b) in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.
The products covered by the investigation are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice; Commerce/ITA-8, Salesforce Customer Relationship Management System.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records entitled Commerce/ITA-8, Salesforce Customer Relationship Management System.
The notice of proposed amendment to this system of records was published in the
The system of records becomes effective on June 18, 2015.
For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to Lois V. Mockabee, International Trade Administration Privacy Act Officer, Room 21023, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Lois V. Mockabee, International Trade Administration Privacy Act Officer, Room 21023, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Telephone: (202) 482-06111.
On May 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records entitled Commerce/ITA-8, Salesforce Customer Relationship Management System (80 FR 26893). No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective June 18, 2015.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective date June 18, 2015.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that melamine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2014, through September 30, 2014. The estimated margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
James Terpstra, 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) 482-3965.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on December 9, 2014.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is melamine (Chemical Abstracts Service (“CAS”) registry number 108-78-01, molecular formula C
The subject merchandise is provided for in subheading 2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Because the mandatory respondents
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In the
The preliminary weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentage is as follows:
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically in ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of melamine from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Furthermore, consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the export price or constructed export price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy. In this LTFV investigation, with regard to PRC-wide entity, export subsidies constitute 3.28 percent
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of melamine, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective date June 18, 2015.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins for the investigation on passenger tires from the PRC are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Toni Page, Lingjun Wang, or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398, (202) 482-2316, or (202) 482-1396, respectively.
On January 27, 2015, the Department published its affirmative preliminary determination that passenger tires from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided by section 733 of the Act.
The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.
The products covered by this investigation are certain passenger tires from the PRC. The products covered by the investigation are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
The Department received comments regarding the scope of this investigation from numerous interested parties, which we have summarized and addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the parties raised and to which the Department responded in the memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the GITI companies' and the Sailun Group's margin calculations since the
In the
The Department determines that the estimated final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for the GITI companies and the Sailun Group. In addition, we found that critical circumstances do not exist for the separate rate companies, while they do exist for the PRC-wide entity. A discussion of our determination can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at the section, “Critical Circumstances.”
As noted above, for this final determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the merchandise subject to the investigation from the PRC-wide entity, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 29, 2014, 90 days prior to publication of the
Because we did not find that critical circumstances exist with respect to the GITI companies, the Sailun Group, and the separate rate companies,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
As stated previously, we will adjust cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion CVD investigation, GITI companies received a calculated export subsidy rate of 15.03 percent while the all-others companies received a calculated export subsidy rate of 13.53 percent.
Pursuant to 777A(f) of the Act, we are also adjusting final cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, where appropriate. We will adjust the Sailun Group's,
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by reason of imports of passenger tires from the PRC, no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury or material retardation does exist, then the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The scope of this investigation is passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Tires covered by this investigation may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks
Suffix letter designations:
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service.
All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the
Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following types of tires:
(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;
(2) new pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a size that is not listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the
(3) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;
(4) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in Table PCT-1B (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the
(b) the designation “T” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:
(a) The size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the
(b) the designation “ST” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the
(e) either
(i) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH
(ii) the tire's speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire's maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either
(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the
(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than any cold inflation pressure listed for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the
(b) in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.
The products covered by the investigation are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 22, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Final Redetermination issued by the Department of Commerce (Department), in which it determined that Fedmet Resources Corporation's (Fedmet) Bastion® magnesia alumina carbon bricks (MACBs) are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from Mexico and the People's Republic of China (PRC),
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On May 3, 2011, Fedmet filed a request for a scope ruling claiming that its Bastion® MACBs are outside the scope of the
Fedmet challenged the Department's Final Scope Ruling before the CIT. On May 30, 2013, the CIT sustained the Department's analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) and (k)(2).
On February 23, 2015, the Department issued its Final Redetermination and found that, pursuant to the CAFC's decision and the CIT's subsequent remand order, Bastion® MACBs imported by Fedmet were not subject to the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, the Department is amending the Final Scope Ruling and finds Fedmet's
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(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).
NOS Office of Coast Survey manages the Certification Requirements for Distributors of NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts (NOAA ENCs®). The certification allows entities to download, redistribute, repackage, or in some cases reformat, official NOAA ENCs and retain the NOAA ENC's official status. The regulations for implementing the Certification are at 15 CFR part 995. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 15 CFR part 995 form the basis for this collection of information. This information allows the Office of Coast Survey to administer the regulation, and to better understand the marketplace resulting in products to that meet the needs of the customer in a timely and efficient manner.
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
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of prize purchase.
This notice sets forth the intention of the Communication and Education (CommEd) Division of CPO to purchase and distribute prizes (1 t-shirt and 1 mug per month) to the monthly winners of the
This Social Media Game with a purpose was developed for several reasons:
1. To help improve public climate literacy (which is a Climate.gov requirement).
2. To engage Climate.gov's publics in a fun & challenging way, while also growing our readership (another req).
3. To test the hypothesis that there is “wisdom in the crowd” by comparing the crowd's averaged best guesses to experts' best guesses as well as real-world observations.
4. If we find evidence that there is indeed wisdom in the crowd, then that begs consideration of a next step: development of approaches for leveraging and focusing the crowd's wisdom in decision-making contexts for societal benefit.
Matters To Be Considered:
Prizes will be distributed monthly. The prizes that will be given to each winner (one per month) are a black T-Shirt with the Climate Challenge Logo on the front and a mug consisting of the same logo as the t-shirt.
David Herring, Division Chief, Communication and Education Division, CPO, NOAA, Rm. 12104, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1207, Fax: 301-713-0517, Email:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice and request for nominations for the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees.
On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act (the “Act”), Public Law 106-113, which, among other things, established two Public Advisory Committees to review the policies, goals, performance, budget and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee, and to advise the Director on these matters (now codified at 35 U.S.C. 5). The America Invents Act Technical Corrections Act made several amendments to the 1999 Act, including the requirement that the terms of the USPTO Public Advisory Committee members be realigned by 2014, so that December 1 be used as the start and end date, with terms staggered so that each year three existing terms expire and three new terms begin on December 1. Through this Notice, the USPTO is requesting nominations for up to three (3) members of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and for up to three (3) members of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee, for terms of three years that begin on December 1, 2015.
Nominations must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before July 25, 2015.
Persons wishing to submit nominations should send the nominee's resumé by postal mail to Andrew C. Byrnes, Chief of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Post Office Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313-1450 or by electronic mail to:
Andrew C. Byrnes, Chief of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, at (571) 272-8600.
The Advisory Committees' duties include:
• Review and advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on matters relating to policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the USPTO relating to patents and trademarks, respectively; and
• Within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year: (1) Prepare an annual report on matters listed above; (2) transmit the report to the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and (3) publish the report in the Official Gazette of the USPTO.
The Public Advisory Committees are each composed of nine (9) voting members who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary for three-year terms. Members are eligible for reappointment for a second consecutive three-year term. The Public Advisory Committee members must be citizens of the United States and are chosen to represent the interests of diverse users of the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee. Members must represent small and large entity applicants located in the United States in proportion to the number of applications filed by such applicants. The Committees must include individuals with “substantial background and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation.” 35 U.S.C. 5(b)(3). Each of the Public Advisory Committees also includes three (3) non-voting members representing each labor organization recognized by the USPTO. Administration policy discourages the appointment of federally registered lobbyists to agency advisory boards and commissions (Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions,
Each newly appointed member of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will serve for a three-year term that begins on December 1, 2015, and ends on December 1, 2018. As required by the 1999 Act, members of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will receive compensation for each day (including travel time) while the member is attending meetings or engaged in the business of that Advisory Committee. The enabling statute states that members are to be compensated at the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of Title 5, United States Code. Committee members are compensated on an hourly basis, calculated at the daily rate. While away from home or regular place of business, each member shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code.
Public Advisory Committee Members are Special Government Employees within the meaning of Section 202 of Title 18, United States Code. The following additional information includes several, but not all, of the ethics rules that apply to members, and assumes that members are not engaged in Public Advisory Committee business more than 60 days during any period of 365 consecutive days.
• Each member will be required to file a confidential financial disclosure form within thirty (30) days of appointment. 5 CFR 2634.202(c), 2634.204, 2634.903, and 2634.904(b).
• Each member will be subject to many of the public integrity laws, including criminal bars against representing a party in a particular matter that came before the member's committee and that involved at least one specific party. 18 U.S.C. 205(c);
• Representation of foreign interests may also raise issues. 35 U.S.C. 5(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 219.
Meetings of each Advisory Committee will take place at the call of the respective Committee Chair to consider
National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE or Council), U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule of an upcoming public meeting conducted by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE). Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
The NACIE meeting will be held via conference call on July 1, 2015—4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Saving Time. Up to 20 dial-in, listen only phone lines will be made available to the public on a first come, first served basis. The conference call number is 1-888-677-5810 and the participant code is 3132285.
Tina Hunter, Designated Federal Official, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-205-8527. Fax: 202-205-0310.
NACIE's Statutory Authority and Function: The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by § 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council is established within the Department of Education to advise the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council submits to the Congress a report on the activities of the Council that includes recommendations the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program.
One of the Council's responsibilities is to develop and provide recommendations to the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction that can benefit Indian children or adults participating in any program which could benefit Indian children.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by Section 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Solicitation of nominations for membership.
To ensure a wide range of candidates and a balanced committee, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the solicitation of nominations to fill upcoming vacancies on the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee.
All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package submitted electronically or postmarked by July 17, 2015.
Nominations packages should be submitted either electronically or by mail, but not by
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is recommended that nominations be submitted in electronic format via email to
The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on the DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards Program's test procedures and rulemaking determinations. The Committee's scope is to review and make recommendations on the: (l) Development of minimum efficiency standards for residential appliances and commercial equipment, (2) development of product test procedures, (3) certification and enforcement of standards, (4) labeling for various residential products and commercial equipment, and (5) specific issues of concern to DOE as requested by the Secretary of Energy, the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Buildings Technologies Office's Director.
To facilitate the functioning of the Committee, working group (
DOE is hereby soliciting nominations for members of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee. The Committee is expected to be continuing in nature. Members will be selected with a view toward achieving a balanced committee of experts in fields relevant to energy efficiency, appliance and commercial equipment standards to include DOE, as well as representatives of industry (including manufacturers and trade associations representing manufacturers, component manufacturers and related suppliers, and retailers), utilities, energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups and consumers. Committee members will serve for a term of three years or less and may be reappointed for successive terms, with no more than two successive terms. Appointments may be made in a manner that allows the terms of the members serving at any time to expire at spaced intervals, so as to ensure continuity in the functioning of the Committee. Some Committee members may be appointed as special Government employees, experts in fields relevant to energy efficiency and appliance and commercial equipment standards; or as representatives of industry (including manufacturers and trade associations representing manufacturers, component manufacturers and related suppliers, and retailers), utilities, energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups and consumers. Special Government employees will be subject to certain ethical restrictions and such members will be required to submit certain information in connection with the appointment process.
Members of the Committee will serve without compensation; however, each member may be reimbursed in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations for authorized travel and per diem expenses incurred while attending Committee meetings.
1. The nominee's current resume or curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, email address, and telephone number;
2. A letter of interest, including a summary of how the nominee's experience and expertise would support the Committee's objectives;
3. An affirmative statement that: (a) The nominee is not currently a federally- registered lobbyist and will not be a federally-registered lobbyist at the time of appointment and during his/her tenure as a Committee member, or (b) if the nominee is currently a federally- registered lobbyist, that the nominee will no longer be a federally-registered lobbyist at the time of appointment to the Committee and during his/her tenure as a member.
All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package by the deadline specified in this notice. Nominations packages should be submitted by either mail or electronically, but not by both methods. Should more information be needed, DOE staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the internet. A selection team will review the nomination packages. This team will be comprised of representatives from several DOE Offices. The selection team will seek balanced viewpoints and consider many criteria, including: (a) Scientific or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience; (b) stakeholder representation; (c) availability and willingness to serve; and (d) skills working in committees, working groups and advisory panels. The selection team will make recommendations regarding membership to the Secretary of Energy for review and selection of Committee members.
Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations to the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by DOE, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups, and persons with disabilities. Please note, however, that Federally-registered lobbyists and individuals already serving on another Federal advisory committee are ineligible for nomination.
John Cymbalsky by telephone at 202-287-1692 or by email at
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the underlying export transaction for Ex-Im Bank insurance coverage.
The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the insured financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The insured financial institution already provides a short description of the goods and/or services being exported and the name and address of the exporter. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.
The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the insured financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to answer.
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the export sales for insurance coverage. The Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only is used to determine the eligibility of the shipment(s) and to calculate the premium due to Ex-Im Bank for its support of the shipment(s) under its insurance program. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the insured financial institution provide the industry code (NAICS) associated with each specific export as well as specific information needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The insured financial institution already provides a short description of the goods and/or services being exported and the name and address of the exporter. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track what exports it is covering with its insurance policy and the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.
The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the insured financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the question are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to answer.
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The “Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer Insurance” form will be used by entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services, to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to obtain legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other statutory requirements. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the applicant provide the number of employees or annual sales volume. That information is needed to determine whether or not they meet the SBA's definition of a small business. The applicant already provides their name, address and industry code (NAICS). These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.
The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the applicant to indicate whether it is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.
The application can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Annual Number of Respondents: 310.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.
Annual Burden Hours: 465 hours.
Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed.
Reviewing time per year: 465 hours.
Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
Average Cost per Year: $19,762.5 (time*wages).
Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
Total Government Cost: $23,715.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance.
The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The financial institution already provides the exporter's name and address. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.
The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.
The application tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form has been updated to include a new Certification and Notices section as well as a new statement explaining Ex-Im Bank's limitation on support for goods subject to trade measures or sanctions.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) gives notice of Wes Yui Chew's suspension from the federal Lifeline universal service support mechanism (Lifeline program) and the commencement of debarment proceedings against him. Suspension immediately excludes Mr. Chew from activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program pending completion of the debarment process. Mr. Chew, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, may contest this suspension or its scope by filing an opposition and any relevant documentation.
Any opposition must be received within 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or June 18, 2015, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition within 90 days of its receipt.
Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Celia Lewis may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-7456 or email at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 0.111(a)(14). Mr. Chew's conviction for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a), in connection with fraudulent claims against the Lifeline program, requires the Bureau to suspend him from participating in activities associated with the Lifeline program. Attached is the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding (Notice of Suspension), DA 15-630, which was mailed to Mr. Chew and released on May 26, 2015. The complete text of the Notice of Suspension is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at
May 26, 2015
Dear Mr. Chew:
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has received notice of your conviction for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a), in connection with fraudulent claims against the federal Lifeline telephone program (Lifeline program).
Any person who has “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the [Lifeline program]” may be prohibited from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
Icon Telecom, Inc. (Icon) participated in the Lifeline program from July 2011 until September 2013.
Pursuant to Section 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules,
In accordance with the Commission's suspension and debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or its scope by filing arguments, with any relevant documents, within thirty (30) calendar days of your receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.
In addition to your immediate suspension from the Lifeline program, your conviction is cause for debarment as defined in Section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules.
As with the suspension process, you may contest the proposed debarment or its scope by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program for three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554 and to the attention of Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-A422, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 with a copy to Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C237, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. All messenger or hand delivery filings must be submitted without envelopes.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lewis via U.S. postal mail, email, or by telephone at (202) 418-7456. If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 or at the email address noted above.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).
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.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 13, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations for Medical Device Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs).” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide greater clarity for FDA staff and IDE sponsors and sponsor-investigators regarding the principal factors that FDA considers when assessing the benefits and risks of IDE applications for human clinical study. The draft guidance also characterizes benefits in the context of investigational research, which includes direct benefits to the subjects and benefits to others (to the extent they are indirect benefits to subjects or reflect the importance of knowledge to be gained). This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 of 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 September 16, 2015.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Sugato De, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5435, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6270; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
A primary goal of this guidance is to clarify the factors that FDA considers when assessing risks and anticipated benefits for IDE studies, and how uncertainty may be offset by a variety of risk mitigation measures that can assure appropriate patient and participant protections in investigational research settings. At earlier stages of device development, FDA considers appropriate mitigation measures for anticipated possible risks and unanticipated risks, whereas in later stages, risk mitigation focuses increasingly on the most probable risks. Another important goal of this guidance is to characterize benefits in the context of investigational research, which includes direct benefits to the subjects and benefits to others (to the extent they are indirect benefits to subjects or reflect the importance of knowledge to be gained).
As with the benefit-risk framework for evaluating marketing applications, FDA assessment of benefits and risks for an IDE application takes into account the contextual setting in which the study is being proposed, including but not limited to characterization of the disease or condition being treated or diagnosed, the availability of alternative treatments or diagnostics, and the risks associated with them. When available, information characterizing subject tolerance for risk
FDA believes use of this benefit-risk framework in an IDE application will facilitate the incorporation of evidence and knowledge from different domains—clinical, nonclinical, and patient—to support a comprehensive, balanced decision-making approach. FDA envisions this will facilitate a common understanding between FDA and sponsors/sponsor-investigators by highlighting which factors are critical in the benefit-risk assessment for a specific application, and clearly explaining how these factors influence a regulatory decision. FDA also believes implementation of this guidance document will improve the predictability, consistency, and transparency of the review process for IDE applications.
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 Agency's current thinking on “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations for Medical Device Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs).” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information 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 part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50.23 (Exception from general requirements for informed consent) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 56.115 (IRB records) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50, subpart B (Informed Consent of Human Subjects) and 56 (Institutional Review Boards) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Non-Microbial Biomarkers of Infection for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Use.” The purpose of this workshop is to receive input from stakeholders and discuss approaches to the study of non-microbial biomarkers for differentiating viral from bacterial infections and for diagnosis and assessment of sepsis. Comments and suggestions generated through this workshop will facilitate further development of regulatory science for establishing appropriate comparator methods and clinically relevant performance standards for non-microbial based in vitro diagnostics for infection.
The public workshop will be held on October 16, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be made by 4 p.m. on October 6, 2015. Registration from those individuals interested in presenting comments should be received by September 16, 2015. See the
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Submit electronic comments to
Natasha Townsend, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5525, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5927, FAX: 301-847-2512, email:
There has been increasing interest in the development of non-microbiological biomarkers to aid in determining whether patient signs and symptoms consistent with infection are attributable to an infectious or non-infectious cause,
The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss the use of non-microbial biomarkers as indicators of infection, potential clinical trial designs that can be used to establish effectiveness, and benefit/risk considerations for use. Specifically, FDA seeks input from health care practitioners, industry, government, academia, and other stakeholders on these topics. This discussion is viewed as essential for establishing the appropriate methods to study the safety and effectiveness of these analytes for different possible uses.
This public workshop will consist of brief presentations providing information to frame the goals of the workshop and interactive discussions via several panel sessions. The presentations will focus on current and anticipated uses for non-microbial biomarkers of infection and a review of different approaches that have been considered for clinical trials. Following the presentations there will be a moderated discussion where participants and additional panelists will be asked to provide their individual perspectives. Topics to be discussed include: (1) Clinical uses for non-microbial biomarkers of infection, (2) comparator methods for studies differentiating viral from bacterial infection, (3) performance standards, (4) statistical methods appropriate for sepsis biomarker trials, and (5) unique considerations when studying pediatric populations.
In advance of the meeting, FDA will place a summary of the issues it believes need consideration on file in the public docket (docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document) and will post it at
Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by 4 p.m. on October 6, 2015. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7 a.m.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4321, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5661, email:
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
This public workshop will also be Webcast. Persons interested in viewing the Webcast must register online by 4 p.m. on October 6, 2015. Early registration is recommended because Webcast connections are limited. Organizations are requested to register all participants, but to view using one connection per location. Webcast participants will be sent technical system requirements after registration and will be sent connection access information after October 8, 2015. If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
This public workshop includes a public comment session. During online registration you may indicate if you wish to present during a public comment session, and which topics you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this document which are addressed in section II. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives to participate in the focused sessions. All requests to make oral presentations must be received by September 16, 2015. FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin, and will select and notify participants by September 22, 2015. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to Yvonne Shea at
FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain information on approaches for establishing the performance of non-microbial biomarkers of infection for in vitro diagnostic device use. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is 4 p.m. on November 13, 2015.
Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
As soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
The HOPE Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop and publish criteria for research involving transplantation of HIV-infected (HIV+) donor organs in HIV+ recipients. The goals of these criteria are, first, to ensure that research using organs from HIV+ donors is conducted under conditions protecting the safety of research participants and the general public; and second, that the results of this research provide a basis for evaluating the safety of solid organ transplantation (SOT) from HIV+ donors to HIV+ recipients. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, invites the public to submit comments regarding the proposed HOPE Act criteria.
To ensure that comments will be considered, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 17, 2015.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Jonah Odim, 240-627-3540.
There is little evidence base for HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation, and it is only in liver and kidney transplantation that there is substantial experience with transplantation of organs from HIV-uninfected (HIV−) donors to HIV+ recipients. The criteria for conducting clinical research in HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation are set forth in six broad categories (Donor Eligibility, Recipient Eligibility, Transplant Hospital Criteria, Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) Responsibilities, Prevention of Inadvertent Transmission of HIV, and Study Design/Required Outcome Measures) and are summarized in the table below. These criteria are in addition to current policies and regulations governing organ transplantation and human subjects research. The goals of these criteria are, first, to ensure that research using organs from HIV+ donors is conducted under conditions protecting the safety of research participants and the general public; and second, that the results of this research provide a basis for evaluating the safety of SOT from HIV+ donors to HIV+ recipients.
Public Law 113-51, The HOPE Act, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to, among other things, “develop and publish criteria for conduct of research relating to transplantation of organs from donors infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) into individuals who are infected with HIV before receiving such organ.” (See Public Health Service Act section 377E(a) [codified at 42 U.S.C. 274f-5]). In addition, pursuant to section 377E(c) of the HOPE Act, the Secretary is required, in conjunction with the OPTN, to review the results of that research to determine whether revisions should be made to the standards of quality adopted under section 372(b)(2)(E) of the Public Health Service Act (OPTN standards for the acquisition and transportation of donated organs) and the regulations governing the operation of the OPTN (42 CFR 121.6).
The authority vested in the Secretary under section 377E(a) to develop and publish research criteria was delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and these research criteria are the subject of this document. They are meant to ensure first, that research using organs from HIV+ donors is conducted under conditions protecting the safety of research participants and the general public; and second, that the results of this research provide a basis for evaluating the safety of SOT from HIV+ donors to HIV+ recipients.
This document was authored by representatives of the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additional input from representatives of other federal agencies, including the Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was solicited. In addition, perspectives and input were solicited from community stakeholders.
The advent of effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the mid-1990s for treatment of individuals infected with HIV transformed a rapidly fatal disease into a well-controlled chronic illness. Currently, the life expectancy of subjects infected with HIV and receiving ART early in the course of their disease approaches that of individuals without HIV infection (Wada, 2013, 2014). In this era of greater longevity, liver failure, end-stage renal disease, and cardiovascular disease have emerged as important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV infection (Neuhaus, 2010).
Organ transplantation prolongs survival and improves quality of life for individuals with end stage organ disease (Matas, 2014; Kim, 2014). Until recently, however, organ transplantation was unavailable to those infected with HIV due to concerns that pharmacologic immunosuppression to prevent rejection would hasten progression from HIV infection to AIDS, concerns about disease transmission, and reluctance to allocate organs to a population whose outcome was unpredictable (Blumberg, 2009, 2013; Mgbako, 2013; Taege, 2013). Nevertheless, a few transplant programs accepted HIV+ patients on their transplant waiting lists and accumulated data showing kidney or liver transplantation could be done safely in these patients (Roland, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Blumberg, 2009; Stock, 2010; Yoon, 2011; Terrault, 2012). Subsequently, a prospective, multi-center clinical trial of kidney and liver transplantation in 275 patients demonstrated that among HIV+ kidney and liver transplant recipients, patient and graft survival rates were acceptable and within the range of outcomes currently achieved among non-infected transplant recipients. However, the rate of kidney rejection was unexpectedly high; demonstrating the immune dysregulation resulting from HIV infection, HCV co-infection, and antirejection drugs is complex and incompletely understood. Some of the challenges encountered in that study remain relevant for clinical sites offering organ transplantation to HIV+ individuals today (
Prior to the passage of the HOPE Act, U.S. law required that all U.S. transplants for HIV+ recipients utilize organs from HIV−uninfected (HIV−) donors. See 42 U.S.C. 273(b)(3)(C), 274(b); 18 U.S.C. 1122 (all prior to amendment by the HOPE Act). The potential for increasing the pool of available organ donors for all recipients by allowing the use of organs from donors infected with HIV for transplantation into recipients infected with HIV (hereinafter referred to as “HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation”) is recognized (Boyarsky, 2011; Mgbako, 2013; Mascolini, 2014). It is estimated that an additional 500 organ donors per year might be available if HIV+ individuals were accepted as organ donors for HIV+ recipients (Boyarsky, 2011). The only published experience with HIV+ to HIV+ SOT at this time is an early pilot report from South Africa (Muller, 2010) with 100 percent patient and graft survival in 4 patients. In a follow-up report from the same group, an additional 10 HIV+ to HIV+ renal transplants were performed (Muller, 2012). All patients were restarted on ART early postoperatively in the immunosuppressive setting of T-cell-depleting induction therapy, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. One to four years post-transplantation, outcomes remained excellent and all patients had undetectable viral loads (Muller, 2012).
This document presents criteria for conducting research in HIV+ to HIV+ SOT. The criteria are grouped into six broad categories: Donor Eligibility, Recipient Eligibility, Transplant Hospital Criteria, OPO Responsibilities, Prevention of Inadvertent Transmission of HIV, and Study Design/Required
This document focuses on liver and kidney transplantation, as it is only in liver and kidney transplantation that there is substantial experience with transplantation from HIV− donors to HIV+ recipients. The intent is not to exclude the possibility of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation of other organs such as heart or lung in the future; however, transplant teams should gain experience with HIV− to HIV+ transplantation of a specific organ before taking on the more complex and less well-defined issues of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation of that organ. Centers developing research protocols for HIV+ to HIV+ non-renal, non-liver transplantation must have a study team with demonstrated experience in HIV− to HIV+ transplants, as noted in Section 3.1(ii), for the organ transplant(s) proposed in the research protocol. Specific criteria for the transplantation of organs other than liver and kidney have not been provided in this document because no evidence base exists to support such recommendations. The study team developing a research protocol for HIV+ to HIV+ non-renal, non-liver transplantation will need to develop and justify specific criteria for review and approval by their IRB, based on the relevant experiences of the study team and others.
These criteria are in addition to, not in place of, current policies and regulations governing organ transplantation and research. Accordingly, to emphasize the specific requirements unique to the transplantation of organs from HIV+ donors into HIV+ recipients in research, the research criteria set forth here do not address related requirements that may exist in federal regulations or OPTN Bylaws or policies including, but not limited to, obligations imposed on OPTN transplant hospitals and transplant programs concerning informed consent of transplant recipients and living donors, the equitable allocation of organs, and organ offers. The regulations governing the operation of OPTN are codified at 42 CFR part 121 and OPTN policies can be found at
Under these research criteria, all HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation must occur under an IRB-approved research protocol and shall comply with any other existing laws, policies and regulations governing the conduct of human subjects research; see Public Law 113-51 and,
HIV+ living donors and HIV+ deceased donors of organs for transplantation into an HIV+ recipient must fulfill applicable clinical criteria in place for uninfected organ donors.
There is substantial concern about the consequences of transplanting an organ from an HIV+ donor to a recipient infected with a strain of HIV that differs from the donor's in terms of its responsiveness to ART. The likelihood and impact of HIV superinfection in this context are unknown. Adverse consequences could range from transient loss of viral suppression necessitating a change in antiretroviral regimen to a worst-case scenario in which the new infecting strain of HIV is unresponsive to available antiretroviral treatment and the recipient progresses to AIDS (Redd, 2013). Information relevant to understanding the known or potential extent of antiretroviral resistance in the strain of HIV infecting the organ donor may be incomplete; there may be inadequate virus in donor specimens for antiretroviral resistance testing; if the specimen is adequate there may be a limited time, or decision-making window, to assess antiretroviral resistance before the organ must be implanted; the donor's history of antiretroviral treatment may be unknown; and results of any prior antiretroviral resistance testing may be unavailable. These issues might be especially challenging when considering organ donation from deceased donors whose HIV infection is first identified during donor evaluation. As of 2011, an estimated 1 in 6 U.S. adults living with HIV infection were undiagnosed (Prevention, 2013) and an estimated 16 percent of newly diagnosed, untreated individuals were infected with virus resistant to at least one class of antiretroviral drug (Kim, 2013; Megens, 2013).
It is anticipated that matching donors and recipients infected with strains of HIV that have the same antiretroviral resistance pattern and whose infections are effectively controlled with comparable antiretroviral regimens will pose the lowest risk of harm to the recipient. However, such a stringent transplant eligibility criterion would limit the pool of suitable donors and constrain capacity to study transplantation of HIV+ organs under the HOPE Act. Transplant teams evaluating a donor should review all available donor and recipient information and be able to propose an antiretroviral regimen that will be equally or more effective, safe, and tolerable for the recipient after transplantation as the regimen in place before transplantation. If there is substantial doubt about the ability to suppress viral replication after transplantation, a different donor should be sought.
Donors co-infected with hepatitis are not excluded from HIV+ to HIV+ transplant; however, careful consideration must be given when evaluating a donor co-infected with HBV and/or HCV (Terrault, 2012; Miro, 2012; Moreno, 2012; Sherman, 2014; Chen, 2014). Although HCV therapeutic strategies are rapidly evolving (Fofana, 2014; Liang, 2013), it is possible that mixed genotype HCV infections may influence post-transplant treatment of HCV in the recipient. Prior antiretroviral treatment of the donor and/or recipient with agents active against HBV (
In the case of a living HIV+ organ donor, the risk of future end-stage liver or kidney failure in the donor must be carefully assessed, as it is in other at-risk populations currently eligible to donate an organ. For example, kidney disease in HIV+ patients has been associated with variants in the apolipoprotein 1 (APOL1) coding variants that confer a very high risk of susceptibility, and are almost exclusively found in patients of African
These criteria require that the consent process for an HIV+ living organ donor must include and document provision to the donor of information regarding: (1) The possibility that the loss of organ function resulting from donation could preclude the use of certain ART drugs in the future; (2) the risk of kidney or liver failure in the setting of HIV infection in the future; (3) the possibility of transmission of occult OIs to the recipient; and (4) the absence of U.S. experience in HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation, and thus the unpredictable nature of donor and recipient outcomes (Mgbako, 2013).
HIV+ transplant candidates who are listed for a transplant in the context of a research study of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation must have the same opportunity as other transplant candidates to receive an organ from an HIV-negative donor, should one become available for them.
The HIV-specific donor eligibility criteria specified below apply when screening HIV+ deceased and HIV+ living donors (also refer to Table 1). Co-infection with HBV and/or HCV is not an exclusion criterion, although researchers that include the co-infected donor must address any additional eligibility criterion within their research protocol.
When evaluating HIV+ deceased donors, it is understood that limited medical history may be available and/or known at the time of the donor evaluation. The transplant team must make all reasonable efforts possible to obtain prior medical history to determine the suitability of the potential donor. A complete history of antiretroviral regimens and a history of viral load tests and resistance testing are especially valuable for evaluating the likelihood of donor HIV resistance to ART regimens. In addition, a history of OIs or cancers is also of high importance, due to the increased risk for both attributable to HIV, and the additional difficulty of treating some infections and neoplasms in a post-transplant setting.
i. Documented HIV infection using licensed test devices and with established confirmatory criteria.
ii. No known history of a CD4+ T-cell count <200/µL.
i. Documented HIV infection using licensed test devices and with established confirmatory criteria.
ii. Well-controlled HIV infection, as evidenced by:
a. CD4+ T-cell count ≥200/µL or ≥14 percent.
b. Fewer than 50 copies/mL of HIV-1 RNA detectable by ultrasensitive or real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay.
c. No known history of a viral load > 1000 copies/mL in the prior 12 months.
iii. The study team must be able to predict a tolerable regimen in the recipient based on the current regimen suppressing virus in the donor as well as the donor's history of ART resistance.
iv. No evidence of active opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
i. Documented HIV infection using licensed test devices and with established confirmatory criteria.
ii. CD4+ T-cell count ≥200/µL or ≥14 percent.
iii. No evidence of active opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
i. Documented HIV infection using licensed test devices and with established confirmatory criteria.
ii. Well-controlled HIV infection, as evidenced by:
a. Lifetime nadir of ≥200 CD4+ T cells/µL.
b. CD4+ T-cell count ≥500/µL for the 6-month period preceding donation.
c. Fewer than 50 copies/mL of HIV-1 RNA detectable by ultrasensitive or real-time PCR assay.
iii. A complete history of ART regimens and ART resistance.
iv. The study team must be able to predict a tolerable regimen in the recipient based on the current regimen suppressing virus in the donor as well as the donor's history of ART resistance.
v. No evidence of active opportunistic complications of HIV infection.
vi. A liver biopsy (in liver donors) or a kidney biopsy (in kidney donors) showing no evidence of a disease process that would put the donor at increased risk of progressing to end-stage organ failure after donation, or that would present a risk of poor graft function to the recipient.
A key consideration when evaluating potential HIV+ transplant candidates is the ability to suppress HIV viral load post-transplant. This includes a thorough assessment by the transplant team of the patient's prescribed antiretroviral medications, HIV RNA levels while on medications, adherence to HIV treatment, and any available HIV resistance testing. The transplant team must be able to devise a post-transplant medication regimen that is both tolerable and effective in suppressing HIV. If there is any significant doubt on the part of the transplant team about the ability to suppress viral replication post-transplant, the patient should not be enrolled in a study of HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation.
The following HIV-specific criteria must be met when screening for a HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplant (also refer to Table 1):
i. CD4+ T-cell count ≥200/µL (kidney) and ≥100/µL (liver) within 16 weeks prior to transplant; any patient with history of OI must have a CD4+ T-cell count ≥200/µL.
ii. HIV RNA less than 50 copies/mL and on a stable antiretroviral regimen.*
iii. No active OI or neoplasm.
iv. No history of chronic cryptosporidiosis, primary CNS lymphoma, or progressive PML.
v. Concurrence by the study team that, based on medical history and ART, viral suppression can be achieved in the recipient post-transplant.
Expertise in the management of individuals with HIV infection is essential for this research. A transplant hospital participating in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation must include experts in the field of transplantation as well as experts in the management of HIV infection working collaboratively as a part of a study team.
i. An established program for the care of individuals infected with HIV.
ii. In order for a transplant hospital to initiate HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation, there must be a study team consisting of (at a minimum) a transplant surgeon, a transplant physician, and an HIV physician, each of whom have experience with at least 5 HIV− to HIV+ transplants with the designated organ(s) over the last four years. This constitutes the minimal experience necessary, and the IRB should evaluate key personnel (transplant surgeon, transplant physician, and HIV physician) in the context of total expertise and experience with respect to HIV and/or organ transplantation.
iii. Defined SOPs and training for the procurement team and implanting team regarding the following issues:
a. Donor evaluation;
b. Organ recovery;
c. Handling, processing, packaging, shipping, and transporting of blood, lymph nodes, tissues, and organs to and/or within the transplant hospital;
d. Transplant procedure.
iv. Transplant hospitals with an IRB-approved research protocol in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation must report to the OPTN organ-specific acceptance criteria for organs from HIV+ donors.
v. Transplant hospitals with an IRB-approved research protocol in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation with HIV+ candidates on the wait list willing to accept an HIV+ organ should specify any additional acceptance criteria to the OPO.
vi. The transplant hospital must verify the accuracy of the donor and recipient HIV status.
vii. Defined SOPs and training regarding an institutional biohazard plan, which outlines the measures taken to prevent and manage inadvertent exposure and/or transmission of HIV.
viii. Defined policies and SOPs for governing the necessary knowledge, experience, skills, and training for independent advocates.
A transplant program conducting research in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation under these research criteria must provide each living donor and recipient with an “Independent Advocate” (as defined in CMS regulations at 42 CFR 482.98(d).
In the setting of living donor transplantation, the recipient and the living donor must each have his or her own advocate. Each advocate must be independent of the research team and must have knowledge and experience with both HIV infection and organ transplantation. In addition, in the setting of a living donor transplant, there must be two independent advocates, one for the donor and another for the recipient.
At a minimum, transplant hospitals conducting research in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation shall develop policies and procedures addressing the role, knowledge, and experience of independent advocates in the setting of HIV infection, transplantation, medical ethics, informed consent, and the potential impact of external pressure on the HIV+ recipient's decision, and HIV+ living donor's decision (if applicable) about whether to enter the HIV+ to HIV+ transplant research study.
Transplant programs performing HIV+ recipient transplantations must designate and provide each HIV+ recipient and prospective HIV+ recipient with an independent advocate who is responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of the HIV+ recipient (or prospective recipient). The independent advocate for the HIV+ recipient must:
i. Promote and protect the interests of the HIV+ recipient (including with respect to having access to a suitable HIV− organ if it becomes available); and take steps to ensure that the HIV+ recipient's decision is informed and free from external pressure.
ii. Review whether the potential HIV+ recipient has received information regarding the results of SOT in general and transplantation in HIV-infected recipients in particular; and the unquantifiable risks of transmission of HIV, OIs, ART resistance, and accelerated kidney, liver, and cardiovascular disease in HIV+ recipients of HIV+ donor organs.
iii. Demonstrate knowledge of HIV infection and transplantation.
Transplant programs performing HIV+ donor transplantations must designate and provide each living HIV+ donor and living prospective HIV+ donor with an independent advocate who is responsible for promoting and protecting the rights and interests of the HIV+ donor (or prospective donor). More specifically, the independent advocate for the HIV+ living donor must:
i. Promote and protect the interests of the HIV+ donor (including with respect to having ample opportunity to withdraw consent from donation); and take steps to ensure that the HIV+ donor's decision is informed and free from external pressure.
ii. Review whether the potential HIV+ donor has received information regarding (a) risks of organ donation in general, as well as the additional potential risks that are the specific to the HIV+ donor, including accelerated organ failure, and limitations of future use of specific antiretroviral agents; and (b) the unknown outcome of HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation.
iii. Demonstrate knowledge of HIV infection and transplantation.
Clinical research in HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation requires a partnership between OPOs and transplant programs. OPOs participating in research of HIV+ to HIV+ organ transplantation must adhere to the following criteria:
i. Develop SOPs and staff training procedures to effectively work with the family and friends of HIV+ subjects in history taking, medical record abstraction, HIV clinic and pharmacy medical record telephone abstraction, obtaining research consent from next of kin to HIV+ subjects, performing physical examination of HIV+ subjects, collecting blood, tissue, and other biospecimens (
ii. Conduct training in obtaining relevant and pertinent HIV+ history, duration of HIV infection, opportunistic infections and their therapy, risk factors for HIV, CD4+ T-cell counts (lows and highs), HIV resistance, ART medication history use and response, history of ART resistance, present ART, HIV viral loads, and HIV genotype and tropism.
iii. Develop a biohazard plan to prevent and manage exposure to or transmission of HIV.
These criteria are in addition to, not in place of, current policies and federal regulations governing organ transplantation and research that pertains to OPOs.
Although the use of HIV-positive organs may help alleviate transplant shortages and reduce patient waiting list times, there also are patient safety concerns to consider. Prevention or management of inadvertent transmission or exposure of an HIV- recipient to organs or tissues from an HIV+ donor due to identification error is paramount (Ison, 2011). The transplant community, with regulatory oversight at multiple levels, has been able to achieve a high level of safety through routine procedures and clinical practice. The precautions taken with ABO compatible donor-recipient pairs and HCV-infected donor organs in HCV-infected recipients (Morales, 2010; Kucirka, 2010; Mandal, 2000; Tector, 2006) are existing models. However, vulnerabilities still exist, and mishaps still occur. For instance, the risks of error during manual transcription of information are well documented.
Each transplant hospital shall develop an institutional biohazard plan for handling of HIV+ organs (
Tissues (
There is a wide range of clinical and immunologic questions that might be addressed in the context of research in HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation. These include, for example, questions related to HIV superinfection; incidence and severity of OIs (including transmission of occult OIs from donor to recipient); immunologic mechanisms contributing to the increased rate of kidney rejection observed in HIV+ recipients; quality of life for recipients of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation; outcomes of living HIV+ donors; and a host of others. The questions will be determined by the investigators who design research protocols for studying HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation. However, to ensure that all studies of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation can contribute to evaluation of the safety of the procedure, the following key donor and recipient characteristics and outcome measures must be incorporated into the design of all clinical trials of HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation.
• HIV status
• CD4+ T-cell count
• Co-infection (HCV, HBV)
• HIV viral load
• ART resistance
• Removal from wait list (death or other reason)
• Time on wait list
• Type (living or deceased)
• HIV status (HIV+ new diagnosis, HIV+ known diagnosis)
• CD4+ T-cell count
• Co-infection (HCV, HBV)
• HIV viral load
• ART resistance
• Progression to renal insufficiency in kidney donors (serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL, serum creatinine level twice the pre-donation creatinine level, or proteinuria).
• Progression to hepatic insufficiency in liver donors (INR > 1.5 and/or total bilirubin > 2.0)
• Change in ART regimen as a result of decreased organ function
• Progression to AIDS
• Failure to suppress viral replication (persistent viremia)
• Death
• Rejection rate (Years 1 and 2)
• Progression to AIDS
• New OIs
• Failure to suppress viral replication (persistent viremia)
• HIV-associated organ failure
• Malignancy
• Graft failure
• Mismatched ART resistance versus donor
• Death
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Request for information.
This document is a request for information regarding specific aspects of the regulatory policies and standards that may be applied to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (hair specimen). The original comment close date was June 29, 2015. We are extending the date to July 29, 2015 to allow for additional comments.
Comment Close Date: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below on or before July 29, 2015.
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
Sean Belouin, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1029, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (240) 276-2716 (phone), (240) 276-2610 (Fax), or email at
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received:
I.
Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. Section 7301 note, required the Department to establish scientific and technical guidelines and amendments in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and to publish Mandatory Guidelines which establish comprehensive standards for all aspects of laboratory drug testing and procedures, including standards that require the use of the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests and strict procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for drug testing. These revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines promote and establish standards that use the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests, while reflecting the ongoing process of review and evaluation of legal, scientific, and societal concerns.
SAMHSA's chartered CSAP Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) is the vehicle to provide recommendations to the SAMHSA Administrator for proposed changes to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The DTAB process involves evaluating the scientific supportability of any considered change. To assist the DTAB, we are soliciting written comments and statements from the general public and industry stakeholders regarding a variety of issues related to hair specimen drug testing, including the hair specimen, its collection, specimen preparation, analytes/cutoffs, specimen validity, and initial and confirmatory testing.
II.
• What are the acceptable body locations from which to collect hair for workplace drug testing? What should be done if head hair is not available for collection?
• What hair treatments (
• What are the acceptable reasons for hair testing (
• What training should a collector receive prior to collecting the hair specimen?
• What is the best protocol to collect the hair specimen?
• Should the hair collection protocol be standardized, including specific instructions on how close to cut the hair specimen to the skin, how to determine the authenticity of the hair specimen, what cutting instruments to use, how to ensure the cutting instruments are decontaminated, and whether the use of collection kits should be required?
• What is the minimum amount of hair that should be collected?
• What are acceptable protocols for hair specimen preparation, such as cutting/powdering, initial washing, decontamination, and pre-extraction (
• Should the washing and decontamination procedures be analyte specific?
• What criteria should be used to determine the acceptability of a specific wash and decontamination procedure? Are there published research studies, with experimental data included, that demonstrate that a particular wash procedure is effective at removing external contaminants while not significantly affecting the amount of incorporated drug related to drug use?
• If washing steps are used for decontamination, should adjustments be made for drug concentrations detected in the wash fluids? What calculations are recommended for these adjustments?
• What analytes should be measured in hair by the initial and confirmatory tests?
• What initial and confirmation cutoffs should be used for the various hair drug testing analytes?
• For each analyte/drug, what criteria (cutoff) should be used to distinguish external contamination from drug use?
• What unique metabolites or other biomarkers exist to confirm use and to distinguish drug use from external contamination for which the drugs are currently tested?
• Are biomarkers or tests needed to verify that the specimen is authentic human hair?
• Are there appropriate biomarkers or tests for the hair specimen that would reveal adulteration and/or substitution? What are the acceptability criteria for these biomarkers or tests?
• Is the “invalid” result category reasonable for hair testing? If so, what criteria are acceptable to classify a specimen result as invalid?
• What technologies are available to perform initial and confirmatory testing on hair specimens?
• What is the best sample for valid quality control/proficiency testing material? How should this quality control/proficiency testing material be prepared? What is the best method to prepare a contaminated hair sample versus a sample that represents drug use?
Notice.
In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century made $5 million per year available for the payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In 2005, the law was amended, and the amount was increased to $5.5 million. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the
For questions on this notice, call Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone 202-372-1061.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code. On September 29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005 was enacted (Pub. L. 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act increased the funds available to the national recreational boating safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated that “not less than” $2 million shall be available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
These funds are available to the Secretary from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a) for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c), no funds available to the Secretary under this subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) remain available during the two succeeding fiscal years. Any amount that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of the 3-year period during which it is available, shall be withdrawn by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to any other amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are withdrawn or the following fiscal year.
Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during fiscal year 2014 for each activity is shown below.
Manufacturer Compliance Inspection Program/Boat Testing Program: Funding was provided to continue the national recreational boat factory visit program, initiated in January 2001. During the Fiscal Year a new contract was awarded that revised the factory visit program into the Manufacturer Compliance Inspection Program. Under this revised program, contracted personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, visit recreational boat manufacturers, recreational boat dealers, and recreational boat shows to inspect for compliance with the Federal regulations. During the 2014 reporting year, inspectors performed 444 factory visits, 81 dealer visits, and 3 boat show visits resulting in 1,272 boats being inspected. Funding was also provided for testing of certain associated equipment and in-water testing of atypical and used recreational boats for compliance with capacity and flotation standards. ($1,521,108). Additional expenditures regarding this topic include Contract Personnel Support ($109,122) and Reimbursable Salaries ($146,248). Collectively, these expenditures are considered to be applicable to the legal requirement that “not less than” $2 million be available to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: Funding was allocated to continue providing the BARD Web System, which enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically over a secure Internet connection. The system also enables the user community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency, nature, and severity of boating accidents. Funds supported system maintenance, development, and technical (hotline) support. ($379,946).
Contract Personnel Support: Funding was provided for contract personnel to support the appropriate cost/benefit analyses for potential new regulations and to conduct general boating safety-related research and analysis and to assist the manufacturer compliance program. ($582,061).
Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) and as described herein. The first position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources and reduce costs. The second position was that of a Recreational Boating Safety Specialist/Marine Investigator with responsibilities that include overseeing and managing RBS projects related to carbon monoxide poisoning, propeller injury mitigation, and manufacturer compliance initiatives. The third position was that of a Legislative and Strategic Planning Manager, with responsibilities that include analyzing proposed and enacted legislation for RBS impacts, and managing the development and implementation of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program's strategic plan. The fourth position was that of a Division Administrative Assistant, with responsibilities that include providing administrative support for the Boating Safety Division. ($476,778).
Trust Fund Financial Assessment: Funding was made available to provide a professional assessment of the Coast Guard's stewardship of the financial resources provided through the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. ($214,998).
Web site Support: Funding was made available for this initiative to provide a full range of public media and boating safety information at
Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2014, $2,116,374 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an additional $657,196 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed, obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2014. The remainder of the FY14 funds made available to the Coast Guard (approximately $3,380,000) may be retained for the allowable period for the National Recreational Boating Survey or transferred into the pool of money available for allocation through the state grant program.
This notice is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)(4).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document describes opportunities available to U.S. exporters to obtain assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to resolve matters concerning the tariff classification and customs valuation applied to U.S. exports by other governments. By publication of this notice, CBP invites U.S. exporters to submit requests for such assistance.
June 18, 2015.
Requests for assistance may be addressed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of International Trade, Regulations & Rulings, Attention: Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division, 90 K St. NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
For tariff classification matters, please contact Jacinto Juarez, Tariff Classification and Marking Branch, at (202) 325-0027, or Greg Connor, Tariff Classification and Marking Branch, at (202) 325-0025. For matters involving customs valuation, please contact Yuliya Gulis, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, at (202) 325-0042.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has direct responsibility for enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness through the enforcement of the laws of the United States and the fostering of lawful international trade and travel. By reducing costs for industry and enforcing trade laws against counterfeit, unsafe, and fraudulently imported goods, CBP is working to facilitate legitimate trade, contribute to American economic prosperity, and protect against risks to public health and safety.
As part of CBP's mission to secure and facilitate lawful international trade, CBP applies a number of legal requirements to goods imported into the customs territory of the United States. In almost all cases, imported goods must be “entered” (that is, declared to CBP), and are subject to detention and examination by CBP officers to ensure compliance with all laws and regulations enforced and administered by CBP. As part of the entry process, goods must be classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and their customs value must be determined. CBP is responsible for fixing the final tariff classification and customs valuation of entered goods through a process called “liquidation.” In making classification and valuation determinations, CBP applies two international instruments: The Harmonized Commodity Description Coding System (also known as the Harmonized System (HS)), and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 (also known as the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Customs Valuation or the “WTO Valuation Agreement”). Both international instruments share a similar goal of ensuring, at the technical level, a standard or uniform approach to the interpretation and application of tariff classification and valuation principles, respectively.
Pursuant to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the “HS Convention”), the World Customs Organization (WCO) developed the HS. The HS is an internationally-standardized product nomenclature used to classify traded products by name and number, and is intended to ensure, at the technical level, a uniform approach to the interpretation and application of tariff classifications. The WCO, established in 1952 as the Customs Co-operation Council (CCC), is an independent, intergovernmental body whose mission is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of customs administrations. The United States, along with 149 other countries and the European Union, is a contracting party to the HS Convention and uses the HS as a basis for its customs tariffs and the collection of international trade statistics.
Subtitle B of title I of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Sec. 1201, Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1147, Aug. 23, 1988 (19 U.S.C. 3001)) (the Act) provides for the approval and implementation in the United States of the tariff classification principles set forth in the HS Convention and its associated Harmonized System nomenclature. More specifically, the Act provides for congressional approval of U.S. accession to the HS Convention (section 1203), enactment of the HTSUS (section 1204), and the publication of foreign trade statistics in conformity with the HS nomenclature (section 1208). In addition, under section 1209, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is made responsible for coordinating trade policy concerning the HS Convention.
Section 1210 of the Act provides that, subject to the policy direction of USTR, the Departments of Treasury and Commerce and the United States International Trade Commission (the Commission) shall have responsibility for formulating U.S. positions on technical and procedural issues relating to tariff classification under the HS Convention, and for representing the United States government at the WCO with respect thereto.
To foster international uniformity in tariff classification matters under the HS, contracting parties have vested the WCO with responsibility for securing uniform interpretation of the HS and its periodic updating in light of developments in technology and changes in trade patterns.
On November 10, 1988, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published in a
Article 10 of the HS Convention provides that any dispute between contracting parties concerning the
With respect to customs valuation, the WTO Valuation Agreement established a standard system for the valuation of imported goods. The WTO Valuation Agreement ensures that determinations of the customs value for the application of duty rates to imported goods are applied in a neutral and uniform manner, precluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. As one of 160 Members of the WTO, the United States uses the Valuation Agreement as the basis for proper customs valuation methodology.
Merchandise imported into the United States is appraised for customs purposes in accordance with Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 1401a) (TAA). Consistent with principles set forth in the WTO Valuation Agreement, the primary method of appraisement is transaction value, which is defined as “the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States,” plus amounts for certain statutorily enumerated additions to the extent not otherwise included in the price actually paid or payable.
The WTO Valuation Agreement established the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation (TCCV), which operates under the auspices of the WCO, with a view to ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of internationally agreed upon customs valuation principles. The TCCV is responsible for the examination of technical problems arising in the day-to-day administration of the customs valuation systems of WTO Valuation Agreement signatories. In addition, the TCCV renders advisory opinions on appropriate solutions based upon the facts presented. The TCCV meets twice a year at the WCO to discuss issues concerning the interpretation and application of the WTO Valuation Agreement.
Pursuant to Annex II to the WTO Valuation Agreement, the United States has the right to be represented at the TCCV to examine specific problems arising from the administration of the customs valuation systems of Members. The United States, which currently serves as Chair to the TCCV, may nominate one delegate and one or more alternates to be its representatives on the TCCV at semi-annual meetings in Brussels. CBP represents the United States at the semi-annual meetings of the TCCV at the WCO.
Additionally, under Article 19 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, the United States may request consultation with a Member or Members if the U.S. considers any benefit to it under the Agreement is being nullified or impaired, or that the achievement of any objective of the Agreement is being impeded, directly or indirectly, as a result of the actions of another Member. Disputes arising under Article 19 of the WTO Valuation Agreement may be referred to the TCCV for an examination of any questions requiring technical consideration.
Accordingly, at meetings of the HSC and TCCV at the WCO, the United States and other customs administrations participate and communicate regularly on issues concerning the interpretation and application of the HS and the WTO Valuation Agreement. Historically, it has been useful for CBP to conduct discussions with other customs administrations at the WCO with a view to reaching a common understanding and interpretation of these instruments. Such discussions can often serve to eliminate or resolve export issues for U.S. traders.
For example, in 2014 CBP was contacted by a U.S. exporter who believed that its textile article was being misclassified by another customs administration. The company brought to CBP's attention the analysis applicable to the merchandise under published CBP rulings available at
Within 30 days of receiving the technical assistance request, attorneys from the Tariff Classification and Marking Branch and import specialists from the National Commodity Specialist Division, within the Office of Regulations and Rulings (R&R), Office of International Trade reviewed the underlying classification issue and determined that the foreign customs administration's treatment of the merchandise was inconsistent with the proper interpretation of the HS. Following CBP's determination of the correct classification of the merchandise, R&R attorneys raised the issue bilaterally with the foreign customs administration and asked them to consider the matter.
Following this bilateral exchange, and within seven months of the initial technical assistance request, CBP secured a favorable decision by the foreign customs administration to classify the merchandise in a manner consistent with the U.S. position and as requested by the exporter. As a result of CBP's engagement with the foreign customs administration, the U.S. company was able to obtain the correct tariff treatment of its imported merchandise in the foreign country.
By publication of this notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection emphasizes that opportunities exist to strengthen communication and coordination between industry, CBP, other customs administrations, and the WCO to advance the shared goal of facilitating international trade. Greater collaboration with industry promotes improved technical understanding among contracting parties and helps to foster uniformity in the interpretation and application of the HS Convention and WTO Valuation Agreement.
On matters involving non-uniform tariff classification or customs valuation treatment by other customs administrations, individual parties or firms do not have standing to initiate dispute settlement procedures or consultations under the HS Convention or the WTO Valuation Agreement. Consequently, for a U.S. individual or firm to raise a tariff classification or customs valuation dispute, that party must file an inquiry or complaint with the U.S. government and provide, or assist in the collection of, any information relating to the matter which may be required.
Accordingly, CBP hereby invites U.S. exporters to file with CBP requests for assistance in resolving any tariff classification or customs valuation treatment by other customs administrations affecting U.S. exports.
CBP will endeavor to provide an initial response to such requests within 60 days of their receipt. Thereafter, in cooperation with the appropriate agencies, CBP will consider the appropriate course of action, including but not limited to the initiation of consultations or dispute settlement at meetings of the HSC or TCCV at the WCO. The inquirer or complainant will be informed of the progress achieved in resolving the matter. Requests for assistance on tariff classification or customs valuation treatment by other customs administrations affecting U.S. exports should be addressed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of International Trade, Regulations & Rulings, Attention: Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division, 90 K St. NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Information submitted by U.S. exporters concerning requests for assistance may, in some instances, include confidential commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which could result in competitive harm to the business submitter. Such information is, generally, protected under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) (FOIA), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). If confidential treatment is requested, submitters should specifically designate the information it considers confidential. Such requests will be handled in accordance with CBP Regulations (19 CFR 103.35) regarding the protection of such information.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective June 4, 2015.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Territory of Guam (FEMA-4224-DR), dated June 5, 2015, and related determinations.
Effective June 5, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 5, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Territory of Guam resulting from Typhoon Dolphin during the period of May 13-16, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Territory. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Rosalyn L. Cole, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The Territory of Guam for Public Assistance.
All areas within the Territory of Guam are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now May 5, 2015, and continuing.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
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 1652-0021, 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 20, 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications; request for comments.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the receipt of nine Enhancement of Survival Permit applications that were developed in accordance with the Template Safe Harbor Agreement (Template SHA) for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit (
To be fully considered, written comments from interested parties must be received on or before July 20, 2015.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the “Pygmy Rabbit SHAA.”
•
•
•
•
•
Michelle Eames, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
On September 7, 2006, the Service announced the availability for public review and comment of a draft Template SHA, which was jointly developed by the Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and a draft Environmental Assessment, which was developed by the Service pursuant to Federal responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Service's September 7, 2006, notice also announced the receipt of three initial permit applications that were developed in accordance with the Template SHA. The final Template SHA, which contained only minor modifications from the draft released for public review, was signed by the Service and WDFW on October 24, 2006. To date, the Service has issued 17 permits under the Template SHA, which cover 137,626 acres that fall within the historic distribution of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit. The nine new applicants have requested to enroll an additional 11,446 acres of privately owned lands under the Template SHA.
The primary objective of the Template SHA is to facilitate collaboration between the Service, WDFW, and prospective participants to voluntarily implement conservation measures to benefit the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit. Another objective of the Template SHA is to facilitate a process to provide incidental take coverage to participants through issuance of Enhancement of Survival Permits, which will relieve participants of additional section 9 liability under the Act if implementation of their conservation measures results in increased numbers or distribution of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits on their enrolled properties.
The Service previously determined that implementation of the Template SHA, to include issuance of permits developed in accordance with the Template SHA, would result in conservation benefits to the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and would not result in significant effects to the human environment. The Service will evaluate any new information, the current permit applications, related documents, and any comments submitted thereon to determine whether they are consistent with the measures prescribed by the Template SHA and other relevant decision documents and permit issuance criteria. If it is determined that the requirements are met, permits to exempt incidental take of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit will be issued to the applicants. The final permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period, following our full consideration of all comments received.
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number,
The Service is furnishing this notice to provide the public, other Federal and State agencies, and interested Tribes an opportunity to review and comment on the Service's proposed issuance of permits to these applicants.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and notice of realty action.
This notice provides for two related actions, one a proposed land use plan amendment involving approximately 19,054 acres of public land in Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lewis, Idaho, and Adams counties of Idaho; and the other proposed land sales involving 22.46 acres of public land in Idaho County being considered in the proposed plan amendment. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, Idaho, intends to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) amendment and associated environmental assessment (EA) for the Cottonwood RMP including the proposed land sales involving 22.46 acres of public land, and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify related issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP amendment, proposed land sales of 22.46 acres of public land and associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until July 20, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers, and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the RMP amendment and proposed sale by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Cottonwood Field Office, 1 Butte Drive, Cottonwood, ID 83522. Please reference “Cottonwood RMP Amendment/Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Sale of Public Lands” on all correspondence.
Will Runnoe, Field Manager, at telephone: 208-962-3256, address: 1 Butte Drive, Cottonwood, ID 83522, email:
This document provides notice that the BLM Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, Idaho, intends to prepare an RMP amendment and associated EA for the Cottonwood RMP and announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning area is located in Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lewis, Idaho, and Adams counties of Idaho, and encompasses approximately 132,240 acres of public land. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify specifically which lands, currently designated as available for disposal, meet one or more of FLPMA's Section 203 sale criteria. The proposed amendment would clarify management direction in the RMP to identify which lands currently designated as available for disposal may be further designated as either available for disposal through sale or not available.
Amending the Cottonwood RMP would not increase the number of acres previously identified in the RMP as available for disposal. It would merely clarify which of those parcels meet Section 203 sale criteria. The proposed amendment would not change the BLM's ability to dispose of those lands through exchange, Recreation & Public Purposes Act leases, or other means of conveyance; or to retain them. Any determination of the availability of identified BLM parcels for disposal, however, would not remove the BLM's obligation to carry out appropriate environmental analysis prior to any proposed sale, exchange, issuance of an R&PP Act lease, or conveyance through any other means, nor would it change BLM's authority to retain those lands under Federal management.
As part of evaluating the availability of the 19,054 acres for potential disposal by sale, the BLM will consider the following described public lands in Idaho County, Idaho, for sale under the authority of Section 203 of FLPMA if they are found to meet Section 203 sale criteria:
The area described for these proposed sales contains 22.46 acres. As part of the environmental assessment for the proposed sales the BLM will consider the appropriate method of sale (competitive, modified competitive or direct).
In addition to initiating scoping for this RMP amendment, this notice also segregates the above-mentioned parcels from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except the sale provisions of FLPMA. The segregation of the public lands being considered for sale will be for a period of 2 years. Conveyance of the identified public land will be subject to valid existing rights and encumbrances of record, including but not limited to rights-of-way for roads and public utilities. Conveyance of any mineral interest pursuant to Section 209 of FLPMA will be considered as part of processing the proposed sales.
On June 18, 2015, the two above-described parcels identified for potential sale will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the United States mining laws, except the sale provisions of FLPMA. Until completion of the sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the two identified public land parcels, except applications for the amendment of previously filed right-of-way applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 2886.15. The segregative effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the
The Cottonwood RMP identifies 19,054 acres of public land as available for disposal. However, the RMP fails to specify whether those lands have been evaluated under FLPMA's Section 203 sale criteria.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. A preliminary issue for the plan amendment area has been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. The issue is to identify lands currently designated as available for disposal, that also meet FLPMA's Section 203 sale criteria (43 U.S.C. 1713(a)).
Comments may also be submitted regarding the planning criteria. Preliminary planning criteria include:
1. The proposed amendment will only address lands already designated as available for disposal (approximately 19,054 acres in Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lewis, Idaho, and Adams Counties of Idaho) that meet FLPMA's Section 203 sale criteria. No other decisions associated with the Cottonwood RMP will be amended.
2. The plan amendments will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
3. For program-specific guidance regarding decisions at the land use planning level, the process will follow the BLM's policies in the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1.
4. Public participation and collaboration will be an integral part of the planning process.
5. The BLM will strive to make decisions in the plan amendments compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, and Federal agencies, and affected Native American tribes, as long as the decisions are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands.
6. The BLM will work collaboratively with cooperating agencies and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals.
The public is invited to provide scoping comments on issues mentioned above, as well as other issues that should be addressed in the preparation of the plan amendment or the proposed sales.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed actions will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a Government-to-Government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed actions that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Minerals and geology, forestry, outdoor recreation, archaeology, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, and soils.
43 U.S.C. 1713(a); 43 CFR 2711.1-2, 40 CFR 1501.7, and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
Subject to valid existing rights, this order withdraws 240.59 acres of National Forest System lands in the Fremont National Forest from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for a period of 20 years for the United States Forest Service to protect the integrity and functionality of the mine reclamation work on the White King/Lucky Lass Mines. The withdrawal will protect the $4.9 million Federal investment for reclamation work that has been completed to contour, cap, and restore vegetation at the mine sites located in the Fremont National Forest in Lake County, Oregon.
Robin Ligons, Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6169, or Candice Polisky, U.S. Forest Service, Region 6, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 503-808-2479. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to reach either of the contacts stated above. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with either of the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
This order will withdraw National Forest System lands that were previously withdrawn by two expired withdrawals created by Public Land Order Nos. 6990 (58 FR 42245 as corrected in 58 FR 44536) and 7519 (67 FR 13649).
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for a period of 20 years to protect the integrity and functionality of the mine reclamation work at the White King/Lucky Lass Mines reclamation project:
The areas described aggregate 240.59 acres in Lake County.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the lands other than under the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary of the Interior determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application (LBA) and by this notice is announcing its availability and the start of a comment period on the Supplemental Draft EIS.
To ensure comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Alton Coal Tract LBA Supplemental Draft EIS within 60 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Written comments may also be hand-delivered to the BLM-Utah Kanab Field Office in Kanab.
Copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS are available at the following BLM office locations: BLM-Utah State Office Public Room, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, and the BLM-Utah Kanab Field Office, 669 South Highway 89 A, Kanab, Utah 84741, during business hours (8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. The Supplemental Draft EIS is available electronically at the following Web site:
Keith Rigtrup, BLM-Utah Color Country District Office, 176 East DL Sargent Drive, Cedar City, Utah 84721, or by telephone at 435-865-3000. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The BLM made the initial Alton Coal Tract LBA Draft EIS available for public review from November 4, 2011 through January 27, 2012. The BLM received approximately 177,000 comments during that time expressing concerns with sensitive species (sage-grouse), protection of wetlands and air quality, among others. Based on those comments and work with other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Park Service, the BLM determined that a Supplemental Draft EIS was needed to adequately address public concerns. Preparation of the Supplemental Draft EIS began in July 2012. As part of the Supplemental Draft EIS process, the BLM worked with Federal, State, and county partners to address public concerns and also collaborated to identify mitigation measures for impacts associated with the project. The Supplemental Draft EIS analyzes the potential impacts of issuing a lease for the Alton Coal Tract, serial number UTU 081895. The lease tract is located near the town of Alton, Utah, and immediately adjacent to the existing Coal Hollow Mine. The LBA for the Alton tract was filed by Alton Coal
The area described includes both public and non-public lands and aggregates 3,581.27 acres.
Consistent with Federal regulations under NEPA and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the BLM must prepare an environmental analysis prior to holding a competitive Federal coal lease sale. The Supplemental Draft EIS analyzes and discloses to the public the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of issuing a Federal coal lease on the Alton Coal Tract, including mining and transportation of coal to a railhead near Cedar City, Utah. A copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS has been sent to affected Federal, State, tribal, and local government agencies; persons and entities identified as potentially being affected by a decision to lease the Alton Coal Tract; and, persons who indicated to the BLM that they wished to receive a copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS.
The Supplemental Draft EIS analyzes three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and K1) and a No Action Alternative. Under the action alternatives, a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for the Federal coal included in the specific tracts considered under those alternatives.
In addition to its analysis of alternatives and consistent with the Kanab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008), the Supplemental Draft EIS reflects the BLM's application of the unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461.5) to the Alton Coal Tract. Based on that review, the BLM has determined the Alton Coal Tract is unsuitable under Criterion 15 (43 CFR 3461.5) based on the presence of sage-grouse dancing and strutting grounds on and around the tract. The BLM will continue to consider the tract for leasing because under Criterion 15, “A lease may be issued if, after consultation with the State, the BLM determines that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not have a significant long-term impact on the species being protected.” As part of that determination, the BLM will consider all available data related to the impacts of the project, including comments from cooperators and the public. All action alternatives in the Supplemental Draft EIS require implementation of a detailed Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan that imposes, among other things, a 4:1 offsite mitigation ratio. The Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan also includes reclamation of surrounding sagebrush habitats to vegetation standards that would provide for sage-grouse habitat, as well as treating a 186-acre area prior to ground disturbance on the leased tract.
The alternatives being considered in the Supplemental Draft EIS are in conformance with the Kanab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008). Requests to be included on the mailing list for this project may be sent by mail, facsimile, or electronically to the addresses listed in the
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the Kanab Field Office (address listed above) during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
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.
43 CFR 3425.3.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Virginia, Inc. on June 12, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner supply containers and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. of Taiwan and Color Imaging, Inc. of Norcross, GA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3070”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of eos Products, LLC and The Kind Group LLC, on June 12, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain lip balm products, containers for lip balm, and components thereof. The complaint name as respondents OraLabs, Inc. of Parker, CO; CVS Health Corporation of Woonsocket, RI; CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, RI; Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. of Deerfield, IL; Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL; Dollar Tree, Inc. of Chesapeake, VA; Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3071”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portion of which will be open to the public) in Arlington, VA on July 13-14, 2015.
Monday, July 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA.
Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 703-414-2173.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Internal Revenue Service, 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA, on Monday, July 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2015 Basic (EA-1) Examination and the May 2015 Pension (EA-2L) Examination in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass scores. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2015 Pension (EA-2F) Examination will be discussed.
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions that may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and the review of the May 2015 Basic (EA-1) Examination and the May 2015 Pension (EA-2L) Examination fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.
The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1:00 p.m. on July 14, 2015, and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3:00 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and should submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All persons planning to attend the
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Asbestos in Construction Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 20, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Asbestos in Construction Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.1101. These information collection requirements require an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to train workers about hazards of asbestos, to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and to maintain accurate records of worker exposure to asbestos. The employer, workers, and Government officials use these records to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor
Notice of listening session Webinar.
The Department of Labor (DOL), in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is announcing a Webinar to update stakeholders on action items since the June 6, 2014 release of “Executive Order [EO] 13650: Actions to Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security—A Shared Commitment.”
The Webinar will take place on June 19th, from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. EDT.
Registration to Participate: To register, please email your contact information (first name, last name, company, title) to
For general information on the EO, visit the Web site at:
On August 1, 2013, President Obama issued EO 13650 to improve chemical facility safety and security. The Working Group charged with implementing the EO is co-chaired by DHS, DOL, and EPA, and includes participation from the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Transportation, all of whom play a role in chemical facility safety measures. The Working Group gathered concerns, comments, feedback, suggestions, and best practices from stakeholders over the course of several Webinars and listening sessions which culminated in a Report to the President released in May 2014, as well as an Action Plan contained therein.
The Working Group has made significant progress on the implementation of the Action Plan since the release of the report by initiating community planning preparedness measures, increasing Federal coordination, improving data management techniques and technology, revising regulations, issuing guidance and advisory documents, and creating a best practices repository, among other initiatives.
The purpose of this Webinar is to update stakeholders and the public on progress made on action items since the June 6, 2014 release of “Executive Order [EO] 13650: Actions to Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security—A Shared Commitment”, and to raise awareness of the EO 13650 Working Group Web site, located at:
We encourage participation from the broad range of stakeholders who have an interest in chemical facility safety and security to include, but not limited to, chemical producers, chemical storage companies, agricultural supply companies, State and local regulators, chemical critical infrastructure owners and operators, first responders, labor organizations representing affected workers, environmental and community groups, and consensus standards organizations.
This Webinar will accommodate over 600 participants. As time permits, participants will be able to ask questions on a first-come first-served basis. We will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to ask questions during the session. We request that participants refrain from making statements, and use this time to ask questions. Should time run out, participants may submit questions or statements to:
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces the following committee meeting.
The meeting will be on July 22, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT.
National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Jefferson Room; Washington, DC 20408.
Robert J. Skwirot, Senior Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5398, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss matters relating to the Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, July 17, 2015. ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Federal Investigative Services (FIS), U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is notifying the general public and other Federal agencies that OPM is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a revised information collection control number 3206-0106, Interview Survey Form, INV 10. OPM is soliciting comments for this collection 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). 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,
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 17, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d).
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or by electronic mail at
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or by electronic mail at
The Interview Survey Form, INV 10 is mailed by OPM, to a random sampling of record and personal sources contacted during background investigations when investigators have performed fieldwork. The INV 10 is used as a quality control instrument designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the investigative product. The form queries the recipient about the investigative procedure exhibited by the investigator, the investigator's professionalism, and the information discussed and reported. In addition to the preformatted response options, OPM invites the recipients to respond with any other relevant comments or suggestions.
OPM proposes the following changes. To prevent confusion as to the meaning of the current question “Were you interviewed in private?” OPM proposes to ask, “Were you interviewed alone (no third party present)?” and “Were you interviewed in a private setting or private, enclosed space?” To provide the respondent the opportunity to explain the circumstances of interviews conducted by phone, OPM is replacing the current series of checkboxes (“My Request,” “Investigator's Request,” “No Reason Given”) with two questions, “Were you offered to be interviewed in person?” and “Please explain why the interview was conducted by telephone.” OPM proposes to amend Question 7 to be more concise by combining the series of two questions into one, so that Question 7 will now read “Please provide any additional comments or concerns you have about the investigator and/or the interview, and indicate if you require additional contact from an OPM representative.”
OPM is also making non-substantive changes to page one of the form for conciseness.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a proceeding to address the methodological approach for accounting for volume losses in calculating the exigent surcharge, as well as other relevant issues. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in
On June 8, 2015, the Postal Service filed a motion requesting the Commission expeditiously implement remand proceedings and take a number
On June 11, 2015, the Commission received two responses to the Postal Service Motion. The first response was filed by the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (APWU) in support of the Postal Service Motion.
For the reasons set forth below, the Commission suspends the requirement that the Postal Service file a 45-day notice of intent to remove the exigent rate surcharge pending issuance of a further order.
The Postal Service asserts that the additional amount to which it claims to be entitled provides a cushion for maintaining the surcharge while further proceedings are conducted.
Without suspension of the surcharge removal target, the Postal Service asserts that the possibility of alternating rate decreases and increases would needlessly burden the public, the Postal Service, and the mailing industry as the Commission conducts the remand proceedings.
The Mailers argue that the Postal Service has misstated the scope of the court's remand. Mailers Response at 1. In particular, they assert that the Postal Service seeks to relitigate the new normal limitation and argue that the scope of the Commission's remand proceedings should be limited to the count once analysis. See
The Commission agrees with the Postal Service that a prompt response to the court's opinion is necessary. If the Postal Service were to file the 45-day notice of intent to remove the surcharge by mid-June, this notice could trigger a burdensome series of rate decreases and increases as described in the Postal Service's Motion. The Commission agrees that it is desirable to avoid such a circumstance.
While the Commission agrees that prompt action is necessary, it does not believe that it is necessary for the $2.766 billion surcharge target to be suspended, as requested by the Postal Service, in order to accommodate the remand proceedings and avoid disruptive and burdensome rate changes. At this juncture, the Commission finds a more measured approach is appropriate and suspends the 45-day notice filing requirement. Such a suspension forestalls a series of rate fluctuations and provides the Commission the opportunity to conclude expedited remand proceedings before the $2.766 billion surcharge target is reached.
The Commission is not persuaded by APWU's assertions that the Commission must suspend the procedures for removal of the exigent rate surcharge in light of the court's directive. The court has not yet issued its mandate. In the absence of further action by the court, the mandate will not, under the court's generally applicable rules, be issued until July 27, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a)(1) and 41(b). Pending issuance of the mandate, the Commission is not prevented from considering the impact of the court's opinion on collection of the exigent surcharge. As discussed above, the Commission is establishing procedures that will permit it to act once the court's mandate is issued. In the meantime, the Postal Service continues to be authorized to collect the exigent surcharge.
The Mailers express different concerns. They strongly oppose the Postal Service's interpretation of the court's opinion as a misstatement of the proper scope of the case on remand. Mailers Response at 1, 3-8. They also argue that a temporary extension of the exigent surcharge pending remand can only be given if the Postal Service agrees to conditions that would make mailers whole if the additional surcharge revenue is ultimately found unwarranted. The Mailers' arguments on these issues and any others they wish to present in the proceedings established by this Order will be considered by the Commission when it acts on remand.
The Mailers also question whether the Commission has jurisdiction to act in this docket until the court's mandate issues. Mailers Response at 8-9. The action taken by the Commission in this Order is not precluded by the fact that the mandate has not yet issued. Even though the court's mandate has not been issued, its decision calls into question the volume of lost mail that should be used to calculate the exigent rate surcharge. The Commission's suspension of this 45-day notice requirement maintains the status quo in order to enable prompt action on remand without making any premature determination as to whether and when rate changes will be required. The 45-day notice requirement can be reinstated at the conclusion of the remand proceedings. The 45-day notice requirement was initially adopted by Order No. 1926, but it was also reexamined and independently confirmed as part of the Postal Service's surcharge removal plan approved by Order No. 2319. Order No. 1926 at 185; Order No. 2319 at 15 (Ordering Paragraph 1). Order No. 2319 was not the subject of the court's review proceeding.
In order to afford the Postal Service and other interested persons an opportunity to comment on the Postal Service's methodological approach for accounting for volume losses due to the Great Recession in a cumulative manner and any other relevant issues they wish to address, the Commission is inviting initial and reply comments. Initial comments are due no later than June 26, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than July 6, 2015.
The Commission establishes Docket No. R2013-11R to consider issues on remand. Since Docket Nos. R2013-11 and R2013-11R are part of the same proceeding, the Commission shall consider all documents filed to date in Docket No. R2013-11 as part of the record in Docket No. R2013-11R. All comments and other documents related to issues on remand must be filed under Docket No. R2013-11R.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2013-11R to consider issues on remand.
2. James Waclawski will continue to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Initial comments are due no later than June 26, 2015.
4. Reply comments addressing matters raised in initial comments are due no later than July 6, 2015.
5. All comments and other documents related to remand issues must be filed under Docket No. R2013-11R.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Plus Trust (“Trust”), New York Alaska ETF Management LLC (“New York Alaska Management”), and Foreside Fund Services, LLC.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 7, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Ofer Abarbanel, New York Alaska ETF Management LLC, 535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
Robert H. Shapiro, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-7758 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company. The Trust is organized as a series fund with multiple series, but will initially be comprised of a single series, the 1-3 Month Enhanced Short Duration ETF, (the “Initial Fund”). The Trust will be overseen by a board of trustees (for any entity, “Board”). Subject to market conditions, applicants expect that the investment objective of the Initial Fund will be to seek current income consistent with preservation of capital and daily liquidity.
2. New York Alaska Management, a Nevada limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. The Adviser (as defined below), subject to the oversight and authority of the Board, will develop the overall investment program for each Fund (as defined below). The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with one or more investment advisers, each of which will act as sub-adviser to a Fund (each a “Sub-Adviser”). Applicants state that each Sub-Adviser will be registered, or not subject to registration, under the Advisers Act.
3. The Board will select and approve Foreside Fund Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, to act as the distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds (the “Initial Distributor”) pursuant to a distribution agreement between the Initial Distributor and the Trust. The Trust may also enter into additional distribution agreements with one or more other broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” and such persons registered under the Exchange Act, “Brokers”) (each, a “Future Distributor” and, together with the Initial Distributor, each, a “Distributor”). The Distributors will act as distributor and principal underwriter of one or more of the Funds and will distribute Shares on an agency basis. The Distributor of any Fund may be an affiliated person or an affiliated person of an affiliated person of that Fund's Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers. No Distributor, Adviser, Sub-Adviser, Trust, or Fund is, or will be, affiliated with any national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (“Stock Exchange”).
4. Applicants request that the order apply not only to the Initial Fund but also to any future series of the Trust as well as other future open-end management companies offering Shares that may utilize active management investment strategies (collectively, “Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by New York Alaska Management or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with New York Alaska Management (New York Alaska Management and each such other entity and any successor thereto included in the term “Adviser”),
5. Applicants request that any exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) apply to: (1) With respect to section 12(d)(1)(B), any Fund that is currently or subsequently part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Initial Fund within the meaning of section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as well as any principal underwriter for the Funds and any Brokers selling Shares of a Fund to an Investing Fund (as defined below); and (2) with respect to section 12(d)(1)(A), each management investment company or unit investment trust registered under the Act that is not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Funds, and that enters into a FOF Participation Agreement (as defined below) to acquire Shares of a Fund (such management investment companies, “Investing Management Companies,” such unit investment trusts, “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts together, “Investing Funds”). Investing Funds do not include the Funds.
6. Applicants anticipate that a Creation Unit will consist of a fixed number of Shares (
7. In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
8. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash; (d) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund requires all Authorized Participants purchasing or redeeming Shares on that day to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are not eligible for transfer through either the NSCC or DTC; or (ii) in the case of Funds holding non-U.S. investments (“Global Funds”), such instruments are not eligible for trading due to local trading restrictions, local restrictions on securities transfers or other similar circumstances; or (e) if the Fund permits an Authorized Participant to deposit or receive (as applicable) cash in lieu of some or all of the Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments, respectively, solely because: (i) Such instruments are, in the case of the purchase of a Creation Unit, not available in sufficient quantity; (ii) such instruments are not eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor on whose behalf the Authorized Participant is acting; or (iii) a holder of Shares of a Global Fund would be subject to unfavorable income tax treatment if the holder receives redemption proceeds in kind.
9. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on a Stock Exchange on which a Fund's Shares are listed, such Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Stock Exchange will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing, on a per Share basis, the sum of the current value of the Portfolio Instruments that were publicly disclosed prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange.
10. A Fund may recoup the settlement costs charged by NSCC and DTC by imposing a transaction fee on investors purchasing or redeeming Creation Units (“Transaction Fee”). The Transaction Fee will be borne only by purchasers and redeemers of Creation Units and will be limited to amounts that have been determined appropriate by the Adviser to defray the transaction expenses that will be incurred by a Fund when an investor purchases or redeems Creation Units.
11. All orders to purchase Creation Units will be placed with a Distributor by or through an Authorized Participant and the Distributor will transmit all purchase orders to the relevant Fund. The Distributor will be responsible for delivering a prospectus (“Prospectus”) to those persons purchasing Creation Units and for maintaining records of both the orders placed with it and the confirmations of acceptance furnished by it.
12. Shares will be listed on a Stock Exchange and traded in the secondary
13. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
14. Shares will not be individually redeemable and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from a Fund, or tender such shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant.
15. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively managed exchange-traded fund.” No Fund marketing materials (other than as required in the Prospectus) will reference an “open-end fund” or “mutual fund,” except to compare and contrast a Fund with conventional mutual funds. In all marketing materials where the features or method of obtaining, buying or selling Shares traded on the Stock Exchange are described, there will be an appropriate statement to the effect that Shares are not individually redeemable.
16. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a Prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded and additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”),
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units from each Fund and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Units will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary materially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on the NAV
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) assure an orderly distribution system of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand, not as a result of unjust or discriminatory manipulation. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity should ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds is contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles present in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants have been advised that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process of up to 14 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local markets where transactions in the Portfolio Instruments of each Global Fund customarily clear and settle, but in all cases no later than 14 calendar days following the tender of a Creation Unit.
8. Applicants submit that section 22(e) was designed to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed and unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Fund to be made within a maximum of 14 calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants state each Global Fund's statement of additional information (“SAI”) will disclose those local holidays (over the period of at least one year following the date of the SAI), if any, that are expected to prevent the delivery of redemption proceeds in seven calendar days and the maximum number of days needed to deliver the proceeds for each affected Global Fund. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Global Funds that do not affect redemptions in-kind.
9. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, or any other broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
10. Applicants request relief to permit Investing Funds to acquire Shares in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and to permit the Funds, their principal underwriters and any Brokers to sell Shares to Investing Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(l)(B) of the Act. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief address the concerns underlying the limits in section 12(d)(1), which include concerns about undue influence, excessive layering of fees and overly complex structures.
11. Applicants submit that their proposed conditions address any concerns regarding the potential for undue influence. To limit the control that an Investing Fund may have over a Fund, applicants propose a condition prohibiting the adviser of an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Adviser”), sponsor of an Investing Trust (“Sponsor”), any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act that is advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Adviser, the Sponsor, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund Adviser or Sponsor (“Investing Fund's Advisory Group”) from controlling (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The same prohibition would apply to any sub-adviser to an Investing Management Company (“Investing Fund Sub-Adviser”), any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, and any investment company or issuer that would be an investment company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act (or portion of such investment company or issuer) advised or sponsored by the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser
12. Applicants propose a condition to ensure that no Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate
13. Applicants propose several conditions to address the potential for layering of fees. Applicants note that the Board of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“independent directors or trustees”), will be required to find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. Applicants also state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
14. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that a Fund will be prohibited from acquiring securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
15. To ensure that an Investing Fund is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Investing Funds must enter into an agreement with the respective Funds (“FOF Participation Agreement”). The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the order only to invest in a Fund and not in any other investment company.
16. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Each Fund may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
17. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25% of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
18. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Absent the unusual circumstances discussed in the application, the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments available for a Fund will be the same for all purchases and redemptions, respectively, and will correspond
19. Applicants also submit that the sale of Shares to and redemption of Shares from an Investing Fund meets the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. Applicants note that any consideration paid for the purchase or redemption of Shares directly from a Fund will be based on the NAV of the Fund in accordance with policies and procedures set forth in the Fund's registration statement.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Fund will be listed on a Stock Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis, for each Fund the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Stock Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. Neither the Adviser nor any Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively-managed exchange-traded funds.
1. The members of the Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Investing Fund's Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Investing Fund in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Investing Fund Adviser and any Investing Fund Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from a Fund or a Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by an Investing Fund in the Shares of a Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of a Fund, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Fund in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, or Trustee or Sponsor, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Fund in the Fund. Any Investing Fund Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Investing Fund Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by an Investing Fund in the
8. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will execute a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund stating that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or Trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Fund of any changes to the list as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the independent directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund relying on the section 12(d)(1) relief will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to allow the listing of options overlying portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares (collectively, “ETFs”) that are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on equities exchanges for series of ETFs based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement is not required.
The text of the proposed rule change is available 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
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 19.3(i) to allow the Exchange's options platform (“BATS Options”) to list options overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on equities exchanges for series of ETFs based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”) is not required.
Currently, BATS Options allows for the listing and trading of options on Fund Shares. Rule 19.3(i)(1)-(3) provide the listings standards for options on Fund Shares with non-U.S. component stocks, such as Fund Shares based on international or global indexes. Rule 19.3(i)(1) requires that any non-U.S. component stocks of an index or portfolio of stocks on which the Fund Shares are based that are not subject to a CSSA do not in the aggregate represent more than 50% of the weight of the index or portfolio. Rule 19.3(i)(2) requires stocks for which the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a CSSA do not represent 20% or more of the weight of the index. Rule 19.3(i)(3) requires that stocks for which the primary market is in any two countries that are not subject to a CSSA do not represent 33% or more of the weight of the index.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Exchange Act for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S. exchanges.
In approving ETFs for equities exchange trading, the Commission thoroughly considered the structure of the ETFs, their usefulness to investors and to the markets, and SRO rules that govern their trading. The Exchange believes that allowing the listing of options overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to the generic listing standards on equities exchanges for ETFs based on international and global indexes and applying Rule 19b-4(e) should fulfill the intended objective of that Rule by allowing options on those ETFs that have satisfied the generic listing standards to commence trading, without the need for the public comment period and Commission approval. The proposed rule has the potential to reduce the time frame for bringing options on ETFs to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants. The failure of a particular ETF to comply with the generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e) would not, however, preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2),
Options on ETFs listed pursuant to these generic standards for international and global indexes would be traded, in all other respects, under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to options on ETFs and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance program for options on ETFs.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, the Exchange may list and trade options on an ETF without a CSSA provided that the ETF is listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of ETFs based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. The Exchange believes that these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio.
The Exchange believes that this proposed listing standard for options on ETFs is reasonable for international and global indexes, and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing requirements,
The Exchange believes that ETFs based on international and global indexes that have been listed pursuant to the generic standards are sufficiently broad-based enough as to make options overlying such ETFs not susceptible instruments for manipulation. The Exchange believes that the threat of manipulation is sufficiently mitigated for underlying ETFs that have been listed on equities exchanges pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts or index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required and for the overlying options, that the Exchange does not see the need for CSSA to be in place before listing and trading options on such ETFs. The Exchange notes that its proposal does not replace the need for a CSSA as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged in the proposed rule and will continue to apply to options on ETFs that are not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts or index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. Instead, the proposed rule adds an additional listing mechanism for certain qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange is also proposing to make several non-substantive changes to the rule text in order to make it easier to read and understand. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to move paragraph (4) to become paragraph (1), to renumber each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) to (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F), respectively, and to make clear that each of the proposed newly numbered paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) apply to the series of Fund Shares that do not meet the criteria proposed in proposed new paragraph (A).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed non-substantive organizational changes are reasonable, fair, and equitable because they are designed to make the rule easier to comprehend. As noted above, the proposed non-substantive changes do not change the need for a CSSA as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged in the proposed rule and will continue to apply to options on ETFs that are not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts or index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. These non-substantive changes to the rules are intended to make the rules clearer and less confusing for participants and investors and to eliminate potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
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. To the contrary, the proposed rule change is a competitive change that is substantially similar to recent rule changes filed by the MIAX Options Exchange (“MIAX”), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”), and International Stock Exchange LLC (“ISE”).
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 401, 402 and 404 of the Company Guide to provide that companies can comply with the Exchange's immediate release policy by disseminating the information required to be disseminated pursuant to this policy by any Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Regulation FD”) compliant method or combination of methods, (ii) clarify the procedures taken by the Exchange in the
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Section 401(a) of the Company Guide requires a listed company to make immediate public disclosure of all material information concerning its affairs (the “immediate release policy”). Section 401(b) provides that companies should comply with the immediate release policy by releasing material information to the public in a manner designed to obtain the widest possible public dissemination. Section 402(b)(ii) specifies that any public disclosure of material information should be made by an announcement released to the national business and financial news-wire services. Section 404 specifies the Exchange's surveillances procedures when unusual market activity occurs.
The Exchange proposes to (i) amend Sections 401, 402 and 404 of the Company Guide to provide that companies can comply with the Exchange's immediate release policy by disseminating the material information by any Regulation FD compliant method or combination of methods, (ii) clarify the procedures taken by the Exchange in the event of unusual market activity and (iii) update references to Exchange departments and personnel and make other non-substantive conforming updates.
Regulation FD was adopted by the Commission in 2000 in order to curb the selective disclosure of material non-public information by issuers to analysts and institutional investors.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Sections 401 and 402 of the Company Guide to provide that companies may comply with the immediate release policy by disseminating the information using any method (or combination of methods) that constitutes compliance with Regulation FD, thus companies will no longer be required to announce material news via a simultaneous release to the national business and financial news-wire services. Foreign private issuers are subject to the immediate release policy but they are not required to comply with Regulation FD. Notwithstanding their exemption from Regulation FD, Section 402(b)(ii) will allow foreign private issuers to comply with the Exchange's immediate release policy by any method (or combination of methods) that would constitute compliance with Regulation FD for a domestic U.S. issuer. While the Exchange continues to believe that there are benefits to the market and investors generally if companies issue press releases when disclosing material information, the Exchange nonetheless believes that it is appropriate to harmonize its requirements in this regard with Regulation FD, as well as with Section 202.06 of the Listed Company Manual of New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) Rule 5250(b)(1), thereby eliminating the confusion inherent in having different regimes applied by different listing exchanges and the Commission. The Exchange believes that many companies will continue to issue press releases in relation to material news events, and Section 402(b)(ii) of the proposed amendment includes language that encourages companies to disclose material news via a press release. However, the Exchange also believes that it is appropriate to enable companies to utilize the flexibility and discretion with respect to the method of disclosure provided by Regulation FD.
Section 401(a) of the Company Guide currently provides that, when the announcement of news of a material event which calls for immediate release is made during trading hours it is essential that the company notify the Stock Watch Department prior to the announcement. This timely notification enables the Exchange to consider whether, in the opinion of the Exchange, trading in the security should be temporarily halted. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 401(a) to codify its long-standing interpretation of the rule that listed companies must notify the Exchange if they intend to release material information shortly before the opening as well as during trading hours which is consistent with the approach that the New York Stock Exchange takes as well. The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 401(a) to specify that notification to the Exchange must be made at least ten minutes prior to the announcement.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 401(b) to permit companies to comply with the Exchange's immediate release policy by any Regulation FD-compliant method. The Exchange proposes to make a corresponding change in Section 402(b) and to require the listed company when contacting the Exchange to (i) inform the Exchange of the substance of the announcement and (ii) identify to the Exchange the Regulation FD-compliant method it intends to use to disseminate the news and provide the Exchange with the information necessary to locate the information upon publication. Further, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 402(b) to state that, when the announcement is in written form, the company must provide the text of the announcement to the Exchange at least ten minutes prior to its release via email or web-based system as specified on the Exchange's Web site.
Section 401(a) of the Company Guide states that a company must notify the Exchange's Stock Watch Department prior to the announcement of material information. It has been the Exchange's long-standing practice to require that companies call the Exchange when such situations occur. The Exchange, therefore, proposes to codify this practice in Section 402(b)(i), clarifying that a company must call, rather than simply notify, the Exchange prior to the announcement. If a listed company intends to comply with the immediate release policy by issuing a press release, the proposed amendment to Section 402(b)(ii) will specify that in order to ensure adequate coverage the press release should be given to Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Reuters Economic Services and Bloomberg Business News. The proposed amendment to Section 402(b)(ii) will also specify that foreign private issuers can comply with the Exchange's immediate release policy by any Regulation FD method (or combination of methods). The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 402(b)(ii) to specify that listed companies may disseminate information via their Web site, as opposed to the Internet generally, and social media as permitted by Regulation FD. However, the proposed amendment will state that if a company utilizes its Web site or social media to disseminate information it must comply with the Commission's guidelines applicable thereto.
The Exchange will continue to evaluate the materiality of these disclosures and implement temporary trading halts, where appropriate, to facilitate the orderly dissemination of certain issuer announcements having a potentially material impact on the price of securities or trading activity to ensure fair and orderly markets.
Consistent with Section 202.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual and Rule 5250(b)(1) of the Nasdaq Stock Market Rules, the Exchange proposes to include a statement in Section 402(d) of the Company Guide to indicate that, in the event of unusual market activity or rumors, the Exchange may contact the listed company to inquire about any company developments that have not been publicly announced but that could be responsible for the activity. If it is determined that the market appears to reflect undisclosed information, the Exchange will normally request that such information be publicly disclosed immediately.
Because the procedures for contacting the Exchange will be set forth on the Exchange's Web site, the Exchange proposes to delete a paragraph in Section 402(g) that now includes outdated contact information.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to delete a reference to its Market Surveillance Department in Section 404 of the Company Guide. The Exchange notes that certain of its market oversight responsibilities are currently performed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, including responsibility relating to the surveillance, investigation and enforcement of insider trading rules.
Since the acquisition of the American Stock Exchange (the “Amex”) by NYSE Euronext and its renaming as NYSE MKT, the references to the Listing Qualifications Department, Listing Qualifications Analysts and the Exchange's Stock Watch Department are no longer accurate. It is proposed that these legacy Amex-related references in Sections 401 and 402, including phone numbers, should be replaced. Companies will be directed to contact the Exchange and a statement that will include the relevant contact information to be used when contacting Exchange staff can be found on the Exchange's Web site at nyse.com. References to “specialists” are changed throughout Section 402 to refer to Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”). Lastly, Sections 402 and 404 of the Company Guide previously referred to market action and market activity inconsistently. The Exchange proposes to change all references to “market action” to “market activity.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
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 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.
Department of State.
Notice of the CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council Meeting and request for comments.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are providing notice that the parties to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) intend to hold the ninth meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council (Council) established under Chapter 17 (Environment) of that agreement in Guatemala City, Guatemala on July 9-10. The Council will meet on July 9 to review implementation of Chapter 17 of CAFTA-DR and the CAFTA-DR Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA). All interested persons are invited to attend the Council's public session beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 10 at Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. During the Council meeting, Council Members will present the progress made and challenges in implementing Chapter 17 obligations and the impacts of environmental cooperation in their respective countries. The Council will also receive a presentation from the CAFTA-DR Secretariat for Environmental Matters (SEM). More information on the Council is included below under
The public session of the Council will be held on July 10, 2015, from 9:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. at Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. We request comments and suggestions in writing no later than June 26, 2015.
Written comments or suggestions should be submitted to both:
(1) Eloise Canfield, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues by email to
(2) Laura Buffo, Director for Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the United States Trade Representative by email to
Eloise Canfield, (202) 647-4750 or Laura Buffo, 202-395-9424
Article 17.5 of the CAFTA-DR establishes an Environmental Affairs Council (the Council) and requires it to meet annually unless the CAFTA-DR parties otherwise agree to oversee the implementation of, and review progress under, Chapter 17. Article 17.5 further requires, unless the parties otherwise agree, that each meeting of the Council include a session in which members of the Council have an opportunity to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of Chapter 17. In Article 17.9, the parties recognize the importance of strengthening capacity to protect the environment and to promote sustainable development in concert with strengthening trade and investment relations and state their commitment to expanding their cooperative relationship on environmental matters. Article 17.9 also references the ECA, which sets out certain priority areas of cooperation on environmental activities that are also reflected in Annex 17.9 of the CAFTA-DR. These priority areas include, among other things: Reinforcing institutional and legal frameworks and the capacity to develop, implement, administer, and enforce environmental laws, regulations, standards and policies; conserving and managing shared, migratory and endangered species in international trade and management of protected areas; promoting best practices leading to sustainable management of the environment; and facilitating technology development and transfer and training to promote clean production technologies.
If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Eloise Canfield at the email addresses listed above under the heading
• Chapter 17 of the CAFTA-DR,
• The Final Environmental Review of CAFTA-DR, and
• The ECA.
These documents are available at:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Issuance of Record of Decision (ROD).
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On November 15, 2012, the TVA Board of Directors declared 1,000 acres of the Muscle Shoals Reservation (MSR) in Colbert County, Alabama, to be surplus to TVA's needs and authorized the sale of such acreage at public auction, thereby adopting the preferred alternative in TVA's final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of a portion of the MSR. The ROD documenting this decision was published on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56980). The notice of availability (NOA) of the
Amy B. Henry, NEPA Program and Valley Projects Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-4045 or email
Heather L. Montgomery, Program Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 1010, MPB 1C-M, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35662-1010; telephone (256) 386-3803 or email
TVA manages public lands to protect the integrated operation of TVA reservoir and power systems, to provide for appropriate public use and enjoyment of the reservoir system, and to provide for continuing economic growth in the Tennessee Valley. TVA assumed custody and control of the 3,036-acre Muscle Shoals/Wilson Dam Reservation in Colbert County, Alabama in 1933 when Congress directed its transfer to TVA from the U.S. War Department. TVA has since managed 2,600 acres of this nonreservoir property as the MSR.
Since acquisition of the land, TVA's need for this amount of MSR property has changed. TVA's programs have changed over time and TVA has greatly reduced its operations and employment at Muscle Shoals. Therefore, TVA has determined that a portion of its MSR is no longer essential to its needs. Local public and private sector developers have been requesting use of this land for many years. In accordance with its economic development mission, TVA concluded that sale and redevelopment of approximately 1,000 acres of the MSR (surplus property) would help stimulate the local and regional economy. The sale of this land would also help TVA reduce its operations and maintenance costs and help TVA reduce its environmental footprint.
The September 2013 MSR ROD provides information about the decision to sell this 1,000-acre portion of the MSR and should be referenced for more details, including information about need for property disposal, alternatives considered by TVA, environmentally preferred alternative, environmental consequences, and other background information.
All of the Action Alternatives in the MSR EIS, including the preferred alternative selected for implementation by the TVA Board, included the publication of a CMP to encourage proper and responsible development of the approximate 1,000 acres of the MSR authorized for sale. To support this effort, TVA and the Northwest Alabama Cooperative District (NACD) conducted studies; evaluated environmental, historical, and architectural impacts and alternatives; participated in public forums; collected public input; and evaluated the market potential for the MSR site. Using the results of these
The CMP, which can be found at
The CMP provides a description for each area, which includes the recommended design guidelines, preferred use options, and development restrictions for each area. The CMP envisions that all areas where development could occur would have design and aesthetics controlled by zoning, that favor a common thread architectural style and material elements consistent with other MSR redevelopment and which complement the historical context. Building, signage, and landscape designs would be pre-approved per local zoning requirements. Development restrictions vary by area, but most areas include restrictions such as: No residential dwellings of any form, no groundwater withdrawal, at least 100-foot setback from existing roadway boundaries that allows for centralized utilities and future pedestrian trails, signage restricted to that which promotes businesses within the development, restriction on operation emissions, etc. TVA and local units of governments would share the responsibility of enforcing these guiding principles, as further specified in the CMP.
The nine areas identified in the CMP are briefly described below. Please refer to the CMP for more area details, guideline documents and location maps.
• Area 1—Retail/Commercial. Area 1 is subdivided into 2 areas (1A and 1B) to accommodate differing scale land uses. The area is located on the western boundary border of the property and is comprised of 95 acres. Market focus would be on the attraction of unique and differentiated businesses and discouragement of redundant retail/commercial uses. Area 1B contains two building complexes, the Greenhouse complex and TVA's Customer Service Center, which would both be promoted for reuse.
• Area 2A—Mixed-use Commercial/Office and Light Industrial. Area 2A is located near the southwest corner of the MSR and is comprised of 61 acres. No buildings are located within the tract, but transmission lines traverse the extreme northwestern portion. Market focus would be on attracting businesses (tourism, government, financial, data management, etc.) that provide a balance of job creation with land-use conservation, with a preference for green-friendly operations.
• Area 2B—Light Industrial. Area 2B is located near the southwest corner of the property and is approximately 66 acres. Market focus is to attract small-scale, clean light industries that provide a balance of job creation and land-use conservation, with a preference for green-friendly operations. Minimization of environmental impacts would be integrated into facility design, and public access would be retained and/or promoted in select areas for bird-watching and future walking trails.
• Area 3—Woodlands Preservation Area. Area 3 is divided into 3A and 3B to accommodate access to Second Street for the Area 7 purchaser and comprises 203 acres. Both areas have similar design guidelines and development restrictions. Significant wetlands and a portion of the existing floodplains are found in these areas, which makes them ideal for preservation. Market focus would be to retain the woodlands and natural habitat and minimize man-made impacts. Value-added opportunities (bird watching, environmental education, wetlands mitigation, recreation, etc.) would be promoted within these areas. The proposed wildlife corridor runs through these areas and fencing, which impedes wildlife, would not be allowed in this area.
• Area 4—Retail/Commercial. Area 4 is located in the southwestern corner of the property and comprises 98 acres. Wetlands and portions of the floodplain are currently located in Area 4; however, TVA is constructing an elevated embankment that would reduce the total number of acres threatened by potential flooding. Market focus would be on the attraction of unique and differentiated businesses and discouragement of redundant retail/commercial uses.
• Area 5A—Mixed Use Large-Scale Campus/Venue. Area 5A is located along the northern boundary of the surplus property along Reservation Road and comprises approximately 85 acres. Market focus is campus environment and attraction of single entity or mixed-use development utilizing a campus-style setting. A small portion of the MSR Historic District is located within area 5A, and future owners would be required to abide by specified design guidelines approved for the Historic District within that portion.
• Area 5B—Mixed Use Medium-Scale Campus/Venue. Area 5B is located along the western boundary of the surplus property along Reservation Road and comprises approximately 50 acres. Eight buildings previously utilized by TVA for research and development are located on this property, all of which would be promoted for reuse. Market focus is campus environment and attraction of single entity or mixed-use development utilizing a campus-style setting. A portion of the MSR Historic District is located within area 5B, and future owners would be required to abide by specified design guidelines for the Historic District within that portion.
• Area 5C—Mixed Use Small-Scale Campus. Area 5C is located on the north side of Reservation Road and comprises approximately 35 acres. Area 5C is an existing multi-use facility campus and all buildings would be promoted for reuse. A portion of the Reservation Road trail is located within this area. Market focus is campus environment and attraction of single entity or mixed-use development utilizing a campus-style setting.
• Area 6—Business Village/Mixed Use Commercial. Area 6 is 74 acres and is located in the center of the surplus property. Sixteen buildings are located in this area. A select number of these buildings have been identified as historically significant and are targeted for adaptive reuse. Other buildings may be promoted or demolished by TVA or future owners depending upon their condition. Preferred use is office, commercial, service, retail, light-to-medium industrial, civic, or government. This area is located within the MSR Historic District, and future owners would be required to abide by specified design guidelines for the Historic District.
• Area 7—Differentiated Industrial Development. Area 7 is a 163-acre area located in the center of the MSR. Three TVA buildings remain in this area and would be promoted for reuse. Area 7 extends to Second Street to accommodate potential employee and shipping traffic or necessary utilities. Preferred use is mid-to-heavy industrial facilities such as manufacturing (or similar) operations with the potential for significant job creation and capital investment. Area of concern (AOC) 998 is located within Area 7. Area 7
• Area 8—TVA property. Areas 8A and 8B (low-level radioactive waste burial site) comprise approximately 400 acres of the MSR. These areas do not contain enough developable land for meaningful non-TVA development and are therefore not part of the 1,000-acre MSR surplus footprint.
• Area 9—Easement Area. Area 9 is approximately 66 acres and located south of the Tennessee River and north of Reservation Road. Area 9 contains the phosphate slag storage area and is therefore not suitable for new construction or permanent public occupancy. TVA will retain ownership of this area, but would make the area available as a utility access corridor under specific use agreements (easements or licenses) in order to complement the overall success of the MSR redevelopment.
The CMP identifies the suggested and preferred areas, but recognizes that TVA could reconsider the area boundaries, preferred uses, market focus, design guidelines, and development restrictions in the event a single buyer expresses an interest in purchasing more than one area, in part or in whole. The cities of Muscle Shoals and Sheffield are expected to annex portions of the surplus property and may also impose additional measures for each area as each city deems appropriate.
Please reference the September 2013 ROD for information about the public involvement in the MSR EIS process. In response to comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the final EIS, TVA noted that it planned to release a draft of the CMP and hold a public meeting to obtain stakeholder comments.
In 2011, TVA and NACD jointly sought input from stakeholders and the general public to discuss the potential economic opportunities in redeveloping the MSR property in preparation of the CMP. Two public meetings were held in November 2011 in Lauderdale and Colbert Counties to obtain public comments on the future use of the MSR property. TVA distributed the draft CMP to interested individuals, groups, and federal, state, and local agencies in September 2014 for a 30-day public comment period. A public meeting was held on September 30, 2014, in Florence, Alabama. TVA received 7 public comments and addressed the comments in the final CMP.
Since the publication of the 2013 MSR ROD, TVA has been taking steps to make portions of the MSR property more useful for future development. TVA developed a strategy that allows for the demolition of and/or enhancements to targeted buildings, structures, and land while abiding by TVA's Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer and the 2011 EIS. The improvements began in 2013 with the removal of unwanted legacy buildings and structures and non-native species plants (
TVA is currently constructing a new levee associated with Pond Creek in the southwest corner (Area 4) of the MSR property. The proposed levee is necessary to fulfill TVA's commitments in the 1973 agreement with the City of Muscle Shoals. Potential environmental impacts were addressed in a July 2014 environmental assessment. The proposed levee would result in an overall reduction in inundation levels within Area 4.
On November 15, 2012, the TVA Board declared 1,000 acres of the MSR surplus to TVA's needs and authorized the sale of such acreage at public auction upon a determination by the Senior Vice President, Economic Development, following consultation with the Vice President, Natural Resources and Real Property Services, that market conditions warrant selling the fee simple interest of the 1,000 acres or a portion thereof. The sale of the property would be in accordance with TVA's preferred alternative, Alternative F—Unrestricted Land Use in the final EIS. This decision incorporates mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the environment. These measures are listed in the 2013 MSR ROD. The preferred alternative also requires the publication of a CMP. TVA developed the MSR CMP with the NACD and other appropriate local, state, and federal authorities for the holistic redevelopment of the MSR property. On March 26, 2015, TVA's Senior Vice President of Economic Development approved the final CMP.
A full list of the measures associated with the sale of the surplus property is identified in the September 2013 MSR ROD. The sale deeds and associated transfer documentation would include restrictions and limitations specific to some or all of the surplus property per the mitigation measures outlined in the final MSR EIS. The CMP specifically identified the restrictions and limitations listed below:
• The sale deeds for every area would contain a covenant that the Grantee shall not remove groundwater from the property or inject groundwater into the property for any purpose except as mandated by applicable regulatory agencies or for environmental sampling or remediation purposes. The deeds would also contain a covenant that the Grantee shall not construct any unlined retention/detention basins or surface water features on the property.
• In order to assure compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), TVA would include specific language in any conveyance documents for the property and require that any proposal for future improvements in a floodplain or wetland area would be subject to TVA review and approval prior to construction (in addition to any other regulatory approval).
• TVA would place an Environmental Covenant on the portion of the property within AOC 998 (Area 7) in order to limit its future uses. This Environmental Covenant is required by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and must be recorded prior to sale. Within the portions of the property subject to Environmental Covenants, use of the property has been approved for industrial and commercial activities in accordance with the Alabama Risk-Based Corrective Action Guidance Manual, which allows traditional industrial uses and operations, commercial uses such as stores and businesses, and community college use such as offices, classrooms, parking areas, etc. The following shall not take place in areas covered by covenant use restrictions without obtaining prior written approval from ADEM: Use of the property for any residential or unrestricted use, which includes but is not limited to primary and secondary schools, dwellings, homes, hospitals, childcare centers, nursing homes, playgrounds, recreation centers, and any other areas or structures with sensitive
• All future sales of areas that are wholly or partially within the MSR Historic District would contain deed restrictions requiring the buyer to adhere to the “Muscle Shoals Reservation Historic Design Guideline and Architectural Controls” pertaining to redevelopment and new development within the historic district boundaries. Design review and enforcement would be addressed by the cities of Muscle Shoals and Sheffield.
• Prior to and in conjunction with the sale of any portion of the property, TVA would be required to coordinate with ADEM with respect to necessary modifications to the existing TVA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit. TVA would inform ADEM of its intentions to sell property prior to auction in order to solicit feedback and assure alignment with necessary procedures. After parcels are sold, TVA must formally request the property be removed from the existing RCRA permit. A public notice (typically 45 days) is required. Upon approval, ADEM would remove the land from the RCRA permit, and the requirements of the permit would no longer apply to the land under new ownership.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by July 20, 2015.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2015-0012.
Paul Jodoin, (202) 366-5465, or James Austrich, 202-366-0731, Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) an applied research program authorized by Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Section 5210 (Public Law 109-59), and reauthorized in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), Sections 52003 and 52005 (Pub. L. 112-141) address some of the most pressing needs related to the nation's highway system. Recognizing the critical safety and operations implications of incident management, SHRP2 developed the National Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Responder Training curriculum. The training curriculum, developed through SHRP2 project numbers L12 and L32A, is designed to reach as many responders as possible through in-person training. In the summer of 2012, the FHWA Office of Operations assumed lead implementation responsibility for the in-person training program, and is currently conducting “train the trainer” sessions throughout the U.S. The Office of Operations also plans to launch an E-Learning Tool (SHRP2 project L32B) that will significantly expand the reach of the program, reaching thousands of additional responders. When fully-deployed, the training will produce a cadre of well-trained responders in each State, able to more quickly reduce the time it takes to clear accidents, offering the benefits of reduced congestion and lost travel time for travelers, as well as improved safety conditions for incident responders and motorists.
The SHRP2 program also identified the need for comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of TIM responder training, and developed an electronic post-course assessment tool (Assessment Tool) through project L32C, to be used to gather and analyze survey information related to TIM responder training. The Assessment Tool and collected survey information will enable participating agencies to assess student learning, to identify actions that can be taken to meet agency emergency response goals, and to evaluate the sufficiency of current agency resources and equipment to meet the goals of successful TIM response. The Assessment Tool will also support the Office of Operations' management of the TIM Responder Training Program by tracking and reporting the number of trainers and trainees reached by the classroom and e-Learning activities. The tool will use a four-level “Kirkpatrick Model” evaluation methodology with survey data collection following both in-person and e-Learning events. Consistent with the Kirkpatrick Model, the Office of Operations intends to survey training participants, their peers, and their supervisors in four phases.
Phase 1 is a reaction survey, sent to the participants immediately after the training session is completed, either in hardcopy or electronic form.
Phase 2 is concurrent with Phase 1 but focused on student learning. The
Phase 3 is a behavior assessment, conducted at least two months following the completion of the training sessions. This phase is designed to assess changes in responder behavior, the relevance of those changes to improved incident response, and their sustainability over time. Information will be collected via survey of training participants, their peers, and their supervisors. Peer and supervisor feedback is essential to obtaining objective, reliable assessments of trainee behavior change. Information will be collected via electronic survey.
Phase 4 assesses organizational change resulting from the training program in the medium and long-terms. Surveys will be distributed electronically to senior management officials of trainee organizations. Initial surveys will be conducted at least three months after training sessions, with annual follow-up surveys for up to three years to gauge long-term effects of the training program.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SC&RA) an exemption from the minimum 30-minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemption enables all specialized carriers and drivers responsible for the transportation of loads that exceed normal weight and dimensional limits—oversize/overweight (OS/OW) loads—and require a permit issued by a government authority, to be exempt from the 30-minute rest break provision in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The exemption is effective June 18, 2015 and expires on June 18, 2017.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The SC&RA is an international trade association of nearly 1,300 member companies from 43 nations. SC&RA members are involved in specialized transportation, machinery moving and erecting, industrial maintenance, millwrighting, and crane rigging, operation, manufacturing, and rental.
SC&RA requests an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The exemption
According to SC&RA, as less space is available for parking OS/OW vehicles, specialized tractor/trailer combinations transporting OS/OW loads will increasingly be parked alongside interstate or other highways and ramp shoulders, further compromising safety. An average OS/OW load may measure approximately 15-16 feet wide and high and in excess of 100 feet in length. Occasionally, the safest option for drivers is to park such loads on the shoulders of interstate routes and other highways, and on ramps leading to and from those highways. This decision requires the driver to protect and alert the motoring public by employing traffic control measures such as setting up safety cones. In some instances, the OS/OW load is so large and/or the shoulder width is so limited, that the tractor-trailer combination cannot be properly parked off the roadway and therefore occupies an entire lane of the road.
SC&RA states that the industry has been diligent in ensuring that its drivers are safety-compliant by identifying, deploying, analyzing and monitoring best practices. The effectiveness of the industry's efforts is substantiated through its safety record. By demand and due to the type and nature of the size and weight involved, these drivers tend to be more experienced and skilled than many drivers in the industry. Safety is achieved through rigorous, mandated training for all drivers on a daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly basis in conjunction with annual safety checks, and self-imposed random safety audits. Furthermore, most specialized transportation carriers conduct weekly—or sometimes more frequent—meetings with drivers to ensure that they are current on information with regard to operating OS/OW loads in their industry.
Further details regarding SC&RA's safety controls can be found in its application for exemption. The application can be accessed in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. SC&RA does not foresee any negative impact to safety from the requested exemption. It believes that granting the exemption would have a favorable impact on overall safety by reducing the frequency of drivers resorting to less than ideal parking options, thereby reducing the frequency of lanes being partially or fully blocked.
The proposed exemption would be effective for 2 years, the maximum period allowed by § 381.300.
On November 24, 2014, FMCSA published notice of this application, and asked for public comment (79 FR 69983); 79 responses were submitted. Comments in favor of the proposed exemption were submitted by the California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA); Dawes Rigging & Crane Rental Inc.; Mammoet USA South Inc.; Miller Transfer; the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA); Suit-Kote Corporation; and 42 individuals and truck drivers.
CCTA stated that it “encourages FMCSA to grant the exemption from the 30-minute break requirement (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)) requested by SC&RA because we believe granting the exemption request will achieve the same level of safety benefit when compared to those drivers still mandated to take the break.”
OOIDA concurred “with the request for exemption of the 30-minute break requirement submitted by the SCRA. The exemption request, which addresses a number of concerns raised by OOIDA members with the 2013 changes to the hours-of-service regulations, would provide a level of safety equal to or greater than that achieved without the exemption. Oversize/Overweight loads present challenges for the driver and all other parties involved in the movement of the load.”
Ms. Tiffany Myhre commented that “I support the exemption filed by SC&RA regarding the 30 minute break requirement for carriers hauling oversize/overweight loads under a permit. This break can cause concerns when we have DPS escorts that are trying to push us through the 30 minute break.”
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) were among 26 respondents that did not explicitly support or oppose the proposed exemption. Many of the individual respondents commented on the impracticality of the 30-minute rule and the unintended consequences it entails.
The ATA wrote that “The safety of the industry and the driving public is better served by rules that encourage flexibility to drive when alert and to make decisions to reduce risk. Furthermore, by crafting and enforcing a rigid rule that doesn't account for diversity of trucking operations, FMCSA is forced to expend additional valuable resources to address the myriad of exemption requests seeking the additional flexibility that should have been addressed during the rulemaking process.”
A commenter who identified himself as Arthur P. stated that “Most routes on 2 lane roads have no parking for trucks let alone a truck with an OS load. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania will not allow you off your route for fuel or food let alone a DOT required break. If you stop before you enter Ohio for your 30 minute break, you might not have enough time to cross Ohio. Then you will be in violation of Ohio law because you have nowhere to stop.”
The IUOE recommended that “the FMCSA undertake a study of the safety and health benefits of a 30-minute break for operators of specialized CMVs in the construction industry before making a determination on the SCRA's request for an exemption.” IUOE also urged “the FMCSA to study the extent to which the SCRA's primary justification for the exemption from the rule—
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) were among the five respondents who opposed the exemption. The Advocates commented that “None of the measures described by SCRA are related in any way to the need to combat the acute fatigue of working and driving a vehicle for up to eight hours straight. The FMCSA itself made the case that safety requires a one-half hour break after eight hours on duty, and the Application provides no information to either refute or countermand the need for that break time as it applies to OS/OW operators.”
A commenter identified only as Trish said that “All drivers are faced with the
FMCSA has evaluated SC&RA's application and the public comments and decided to grant the exemption. The arguments against the exemption are not trivial. While livestock may be physically endangered if the vehicle transporting them has to stop while the driver takes a 30-minute break—as recognized in the exemption granted to livestock haulers (79FR 33634, June 11, 2014)—the same cannot be said of OS/OW loads. It is also true that parking shortages affect drivers of many types of vehicle. Nonetheless, finding suitable parking for trucks with OS/OW loads is particularly difficult, as SC&RA pointed out, and the default option is likely to be parking on the shoulder of a highway, with the load sometimes extending into the lanes of traffic. No matter how well marked, trucks parked at roadside, especially at night, are too often mistaken for moving vehicles and struck, frequently with fatal consequences, before an inattentive driver can correct his mistake. Based on available information, the number of such crashes likely to occur during a 30-minute break cannot be estimated, but the Agency has concluded that drivers of OS/OW vehicles are at least as likely to be involved in a crash while parked at roadside during a 30-minute break as while driving during that same period and the hour or so thereafter, where the break typically has the greatest benefit. FMCSA has therefore decided to grant the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.
1. Drivers of specialized loads moving in interstate commerce that exceed normal weight and dimensional limits—oversize/overweight (OS/OW) loads—and require a permit issued by a government authority, are exempt from the requirement for a 30-minute rest break in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii). Drivers of loads not moving in interstate commerce are not eligible for this exemption.
2. Drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
3. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a “Satisfactory” safety rating with FMCSA, or be “unrated.” Motor carriers with “Conditional” or “Unsatisfactory” FMCSA safety ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.
4. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores below FMCSA's intervention thresholds, as displayed at
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is granted for the period from 12:01 a.m., June 18, 2015 through 11:59 p.m., June 18, 2017.
This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). These drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMV drivers operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
b. Date of the accident,
c. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
d. Driver's name and license number and State of issuance,
e. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
f. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
g. Number of fatalities,
h. The police-reported cause of the accident,
i. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws or motor carrier safety regulations, and
j. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA believes carriers transporting OS/OW loads under permit will continue to maintain their previous safety record while operating under this exemption. However, should problems occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Special Valuation Rules.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to Tax Shelter Regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The estimated annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper for the collection of information in § 1.6011-4 will be reflected on Form 8886.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5746, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 712, Life Insurance Statement.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at (202) 317-5746, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Automatic Consent for Eligible Educational Institution to Change Reporting Methods.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5884-C, Work Opportunity Credit for Qualified Tax-Exempt Organizations Hiring Qualified Veterans.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5310-A, Notice of Plan Merger or Consolidation, Spinoff, or Transfer of Plan Assets or Liabilities; Notice of Qualified Separate Lines of Business.
Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed Privacy Act of 1974 systems of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) proposes to establish new Privacy Act systems of records titled “Treasury .017—Correspondence and Contact Information.” The systems will be used to facilitate mailings and correspondence to multiple addressees and other activities in furtherance of Treasury duties. Treasury bureaus and Departmental Offices will use the systems to account for all individuals appearing on contact lists and individuals who choose to be placed on Treasury mailing lists; maintaining lists of individuals who attend meetings; maintaining information regarding individuals who enter Treasury-sponsored contests; and for other
Submit comments on or before July 20, 2015. This new systems will be effective July 28, 2015 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions and for privacy issues please contact: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, or at (202) 622-0790 (not toll-free).
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury proposes to establish new systems of records titled, “Treasury .017—Correspondence and Contact Information.” Information about the proposed systems of records is published in its entirety below.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Treasury provided a report of these systems of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Treasury .017—Correspondence and Contact Information.
The records are located in Treasury bureaus and offices, both in Washington, DC and at field locations as follows:
(1) Departmental Offices: 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(2) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: 1310 G St. NW., Washington, DC 20220.
(3) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Constitution Center, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20024;
(4) Fiscal Service: Liberty Center Building, 401 14th St. SW., Washington, DC 20227;
(5) Internal Revenue Service: 1111 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20224;
(6) United States Mint: 801 Ninth St. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(7) Bureau of Engraving and Printing: Eastern Currency Facility, 14th and C Streets SW., Washington, DC 20228 and Western Currency Facility, 9000 Blue Mound Rd., Fort Worth, TX 76131;
(8) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: Vienna, VA 22183;
(9) Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program: 1801 L St. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(10) Office of Inspector General: 740 15th St. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(11) Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration: 1125 15th St. NW., Suite 700A, Washington, DC 20005; and
(12) Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC): 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220.
• Individuals who serve on Treasury boards and committees;
• Third parties who identify potential contacts or who provide information Treasury uses to determine an individual's inclusion on a mailing or contact list;
• Individuals who provide contact information, or otherwise consent to having their contact information used, for facilitating communication with Treasury, including but not limited to, members of the public, government officials, representatives of industry, media, non-profits, academia, and others who express an interest in Treasury-related programs and activities;
• Individuals who request information or inclusion on mailing lists for information or updates from Treasury or one of its bureaus or offices, concerning specific issues or topics;
• Treasury employees, contractors, grantees, fiscal agents, financial agents, interns, and detailees, members of the public, government officials, and representatives of industry, media, non-profits, academia, and others, paid or non-paid, attending a Treasury sponsored event, work activity, or an event in which Treasury participated, including meetings, events, or conferences;
• Emergency contact information for the individual point-of-contact for organizations in the event that individual suffers an injury on Treasury premises;
• Alternative points-of-contact contact information provided by individuals or organizations included in a mailing or contact list; and
• Individuals who voluntarily join a Treasury-owned and operated web portal for collaboration purposes.
• Name
• Preferred name
• Business contact information including, but not limited to:
○ Business or organization name;
○ Business or organization type;
○ Business mailing address;
○ Job or functional title or business affiliation;
○ Phone number(s);
○ Mobile phone number; fax number;
○ Pager number;
○ Electronic mail (Email) addresses;
• Personal contact information, including, but not limited to:
○ Mailing address;
○ Phone number(s);
○ Mobile phone number; fax number;
○ Pager number;
○ Electronic mail (Email) addresses;
• Other contact information provided by individuals while on travel or otherwise away from the office or home, including:
○ Assistant or other similar point of contact's name, title, or contact information;
• Preferred contact method(s) and contact rules (any specific rules to be followed when considering contacting an individual);
• Communications between Treasury employees and members of the public, Federal, state and local government officials, and representatives of industry, media, non-profits, and academia;
• General descriptions of particular topics or subjects of interest as related to individuals or organizations who communicate with Treasury;
• Information regarding curricula vitae, including memberships in professional societies, affiliation with standards bodies, any teaching positions held, or any publications associated with the individual;
• Travel preferences (individuals who serve on Treasury boards and committees only);
• Identification number assigned by computer in cases where created in order to retrieve information.
5 U.S.C. 301.
The systems are maintained to mail informational literature or responses to those who request it; maintain lists of individuals who attend Treasury sponsored events, conferences, work meetings and other activities, or events in which Treasury participates; maintain lists and credentials of individuals who Treasury may consult professionally in furtherance of its mission; and for other purposes for which mailing or contact lists may be created.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in theses systems may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (including United States Attorneys' Offices) or other federal agencies conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. Treasury or any component thereof;
2. Any employee of Treasury in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee of Treasury in his/her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or Treasury has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. Treasury suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with Treasury's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, fiscal agents, financial agents, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for Treasury, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to Treasury officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate Federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person authorizing the disclosure.
H. To sponsors, employers, contractors, facility operators, grantees, experts, fiscal agents, financial agents, and consultants, paid or non-paid, in connection with establishing an access account for an individual or maintaining appropriate points of contact and when necessary to accomplish a Treasury mission function or objective related to the system of records.
I. To other individuals in the same operational program supported by an information technology resource, where appropriate notice to the individual has been made that his or her contact information will be shared with other members of the same operational program in order to facilitate collaboration.
J. To federal agencies, councils and offices, such as the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Government Accountability Office, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the fulfillment of these agencies' official duties.
K. To international, Federal, state, local, tribal, or private entities for the purpose of the regular exchange of business contact information in order to facilitate collaboration for official business.
L. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or her designee, in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of Treasury or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of Treasury's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Records in these systems are on paper and/or in digital or other electronic form. Digital and other electronic images are stored on a storage area network in a secured environment. Records, whether paper or electronic, may be stored in Departmental Offices or at the bureau or office level.
Information may be retrieved, sorted, and/or searched by an identification number assigned by computer, facility, business affiliation, email address, name of the individual, or other data fields previously identified in this System of Records Notice.
Information in these systems is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies, including Treasury Directive 85-01, Department of the Treasury Information Technology (IT) Security Program. Further, security protocols for these systems of records will meet multiple National Institute of Standards and Technology security standards from authentication to certification and authorization. Records in these systems of records will be maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that will use security hardware and software to include: Multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. Additional safeguards will vary by component and program. All records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to authorized personnel who have a “need
Records are securely retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 12, item 2a. Files may be retained for up to three years depending on the record. For records that may be used in litigation, the files related to that litigation will be retained for three years after final court adjudication.
Director, Freedom of Information Act and Transparency, Office of Privacy, Transparency, and Records, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in these systems of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing, in accordance with Treasury's Privacy Act regulations (located at 31 CFR 1.26), to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Transparency Liaison, whose contact information can be found at
No specific form is required, but a request must be written and:
• Be signed and either notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization
• State that the request is made pursuant to the FOIA and/or Privacy Act disclosure regulations;
• Include information that will enable the processing office to determine the fee category of the user;
• Be addressed to the bureau that maintains the record (in order for a request to be properly received by the Department, the request must be received in the appropriate bureau's disclosure office);
• Reasonably describe the records;
• Give the address where the determination letter is to be sent;
• State whether or not the requester wishes to inspect the records or have a copy made without first inspecting them; and
• Include a firm agreement from the requester to pay fees for search, duplication, or review, as appropriate. In the absence of a firm agreement to pay, the requester may submit a request for a waiver or reduction of fees, along with justification of how such a waiver request meets the criteria for a waiver or reduction of fees found in the FOIA statute at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
You may also submit your request online at
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Information contained in these systems is obtained from affected individuals, organizations, and facilities; public source data; other government agencies; and information already in other Treasury records systems.
None.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that a meeting of the Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee, previously scheduled to be held in Room 230, on June 30, 2015, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, is hereby cancelled. The Notice of Meeting appeared in the
If you have any questions, please contact Sumitra Muralidhar, Designated Federal Officer, at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (Committee) will meet July 20-21, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Room 530, 810 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20420. The sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Nancy Copeland, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Policy Staff (211A), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420 or email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2., that the MyVA Advisory Committee (MVAC) will meet July 14 and 15, 2015 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington DC VA Medical Center, 50 Irving Street NW., Freedom Auditorium, Washington, DC 20422.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Executive Director, MyVA Task Force Office regarding the MyVA initiative and VA's ability to rebuild trust with Veterans and other stakeholders, improve service delivery with a focus on Veteran outcomes, and set the course for longer-term excellence and reform of the VA.
On July 14 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the Washington DC VA Medical Center. 5 U.S.C. 552b(b)(6). In the afternoon from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., the Committee will reconvene in an open session to discuss the progress on and the integration of the work in the five key MyVA work streams—Veteran Experience (explaining the efforts conducted to improve the Veteran's experience), Employees Experience, Support Services Excellence (such as information technology and human resources), Performance Improvement (projects undertaken to date and those upcoming), and VA Strategic Partnerships.
On July 15, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., the Committee will discuss and recommend areas for improvement on VA's work to date, plans for the future, and integration of the MyVA efforts. This session is open to the public. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Debra Walker, Designated Federal Officer, MyVA Program Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1800 G Street NW., Room 880-40, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
Because the meeting will be held in a Government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid government issued photo ID. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
The Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Publication of the Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions represents a key component of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735) and incorporated by reference in the President's Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the
In the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) agencies report regulatory actions upcoming in the next year. Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda.
The complete Unified Agenda for spring 2015, which contains the regulatory agendas for 63 Federal agencies, is available to the public at
The spring 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
I. What is the Unified Agenda?
II. Why is the Unified Agenda published?
III. How is the Unified Agenda organized?
IV. What information appears for each entry?
V. Abbreviations
VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The spring 2015 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 63 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.
The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated by reference in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Unified Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
Executive Order 13563 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which includes the general principles of regulation and public participation, and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies; flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or technological information and processes used to support the agencies' regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.
The
The
The
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Unified Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Some agencies that participated in the fall 2014 edition of The Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for those entries that appeared in the Plan:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
• a statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceeding;
• a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and
• either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with E.O. 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
C. William Hench, Senior Cattle Health Specialist, Cattle Health Center, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B-3E20, Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
Kris Caraher, Branch Chief, Review and Analysis, Financial Management Division, MRPBS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 20737,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302,
Various Secretary's Rules and Regulations (years of 1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1950, and 1963) and Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.15 provide direction for the use of NFS lands for mineral development activities associated with the exercise of reserved mineral rights. These existing rules for reserved minerals development activities also include requirements for protection of NFS resources.
Currently, there are no formal regulations governing the use of NFS lands for activities associated with the exercise of outstanding mineral rights underlying those lands. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 2508, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to apply specified terms and conditions to surface-disturbing activities related to development of oil and gas on certain lands with outstanding mineral rights on the Allegheny National Forest, and promulgate regulations implementing that section.
The Forest Service initiated rulemaking for the use of NFS lands for development activities associated with both reserved and outstanding minerals rights with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's spring 2015 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016.
Commerce hereby publishes its spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. These operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office, issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's spring 2015 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD issuances initiated by DoD components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD issuances listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest, and therefore, they are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on November 21, 2014, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the fall of 2015. In addition to this agenda, DoD components also publish rulemaking notices pertaining to their specific statutory administration requirements as required.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program, and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings: Telephone 571-372-0485, write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-697-2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park: Telephone 571-372-0489, write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email
For general information on Office of the Secretary agenda items which are procurement-related, contact Mr. Manuel Quinones: Telephone 571-372-6088, write to Defense Acquisition Regulations Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350, or email
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen: Telephone 703-428-6173, write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDR-C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3860, or email
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith: Telephone 703-693-3644, write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Noreen Hagerty-Ford: Telephone 703-614-7408, write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh: Telephone 703-614-8500, write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Departments of the Army and Navy. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies regulations that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD regulations, which are directly applicable under these statutes, will be identified in the agenda and their action status indicated. Generally, the regulatory status reports in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have
Although not a regulatory agency, DoD will continue to participate in regulatory initiatives designed to reduce economic costs and unnecessary burdens upon the public. Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563 recognizes the importance of maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch. DoD's retrospective review plan is intended to identify certain significant rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive and can be accessed at:
Department of Energy.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's Spring 2015 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
Completed:
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
C'Reda J. Weeden, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the rulemaking activities that the Department expects to undertake this year to advance this mission. The Agenda furthers several Departmental goals, including strengthening health care; advancing scientific knowledge and innovation; advancing the health, safety, and well-being of the American people; increasing efficiency, transparency, and accountability of HHS programs; and strengthening the nation's health and human services infrastructure and workforce.
In the rules outlined for this Agenda, HHS continues its work to build a better, smarter, and stronger health care delivery system. Our aspiration is for patients to receive higher quality of care, for medical information to be easy to understand, and for health care dollars to be spent more wisely. We welcome the opportunity to build a more transparent health care delivery system and strengthen partnerships with patients, physicians, governments, and businesses. We continue our work by helping more people get and keep health insurance coverage and making health care more affordable for working families.
In addition, HHS strives to lead in the advancement of scientific knowledge and innovation to enable our nation's scientists and researchers to continue making new and improved vaccines, cures, therapies, and rapid diagnostics. The accompanying regulations promote advancements in science, research, and innovation to attract the best experts to accelerate cures; reduce administrative burdens and duplication; and promote data sharing to protect the health of the American people.
HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process and promote increase transparency to the public regarding our regulatory activity. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory Web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Laura Rich, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 71, G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
Sarah Harding, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244,
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of current and projected rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on November 21, 2014, at 79 FR 76732.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Jorge Arroyo, Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-1), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Monica Grasso Ph.D., Manager, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Denise Daniels, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Unified regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the unified agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between spring 2015 and spring 2016. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Direct all comments and inquiries to the appropriate agency contact. Direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-5257.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Scott Covington, Refuge Energy Program Coordinator, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:NWRS, Falls Church, VA 22041-3808,
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its spring 2015 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Department of Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Kathleen Franks, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
Therefore, the Departments of Labor and Education will issue a joint NPRM that will include regulations governing the Combined and Unified State Plans, performance accountability system and One-Stop Delivery System and One-Stop Centers, as both Departments are required to jointly implement these provisions of WIOA. All of the other regulations implementing WIOA will be published by the Departments of Labor and Education in separate NPRMs.
Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. ASTM International has published recommended standards for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.
The NPRM was published on September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56274). OSHA received over 1,700 comments from the public on the proposed rule, and over 200 stakeholders provided testimony during public hearings on the proposal. The agency is now reviewing and considering the evidence in the rulemaking record.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). Our regulations should be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They should not be issued without appropriate involvement of the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed. To view additional information about the Department's regulatory activities online, go to
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by OST.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. We have classified rules as significant in the Agenda if they are, essentially, very beneficial, controversial, or of substantial public interest under our Regulatory Policies and Procedures. All DOT significant rulemaking documents are subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided a rule is subject to its review under Executive Order 12866, we have also classified it as significant in the Agenda.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated February 23, 2015, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which we expect to make a decision on whether to issue it. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D. In response to Executive Order 13563 “Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules,” in 2011 we prepared a retrospective review plan providing more detail on the process we use to conduct reviews of existing rules, including changes in response to Executive Order 13563. We provided the public opportunities to comment at
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the Internet at
(Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation Administration, substitute the following address: Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591).
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Mark Bury, Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 915A, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3110.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Kathryn Gresham, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W31-214, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-6063.
FTA—Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E56-308, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0675.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Karin Christian, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4400.
MARAD—Christine Gurland, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-5157.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Office of Regulation and Enforcement, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to permit its use. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department has added other elements to its review plan. The Department has decided to improve its plan by adding special oversight processes within the Department, encouraging effective and timely reviews, including providing additional guidance on particular problems that warrant review, and expanding opportunities for public participation. These new actions are in addition to the other steps described in this appendix.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The FAA has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most DOT modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highway is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145 of title 23, expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
PHMSA and FRA held a public meeting to address the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. This meeting was part of PHMSA and FRA's comprehensive review of operational factors that affect the safety of the transportation of hazardous materials by rail and sought input from stakeholders and interested parties. Specifically, this meeting sought comment from the regulated community including small entities on revision to part 174. PHMSA and FRA have evaluated the comments from this meeting. The comments to this public meeting noted that some small entities may be affected, but the economic impact on small entities will not be significant. As a result, the agency determined that the rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A response to the public comments, including those of small entities, and proposals for corresponding revisions to part 174 will be included in a future rulemaking.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE. Based on regulated entities, PHMSA found that the majority of operators are not small businesses. Therefore, though some small entities
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. PHMSA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities, which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda and semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations currently under development,
• Reviews of existing regulations, and
• Rules completed or canceled since the last agenda.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish it in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Services Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker” refers to an online portal to EPA's priority rules and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. More information about the Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker appears in section H of this preamble.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition to meeting its mission goals and priorities as described above, EPA continues to review its existing regulations under Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This E.O. provides for periodic retrospective review of existing significant regulations and is intended to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, to make the Agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments are provided in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To be most effective, comments should contain information and data that support your position, and you also should explain why EPA should incorporate your suggestion in the rule or other type of action. You can be particularly helpful and persuasive if you provide examples to illustrate your concerns and offer specific alternatives.
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA has no reviews under section 610 of the RFA at this time.
You can choose how to organize the agenda entries online by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—This section includes EPA actions generally intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking, such as Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—This section includes EPA rulemaking actions that are within a year of proposal (publication of Notices of Proposed Rulemakings [NPRMs]).
3. Final Rule Stage—This section includes rules that will be issued as a final rule within a year.
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action is after May 2016. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category. By the time an action is listed in the Proposed Rules category, you may have missed the opportunity to participate in certain public meetings or policy dialogues.
5. Completed Actions—This section contains actions that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of EO 12866.
EPA posts monthly information of new rulemakings that the Agency's senior managers have developed. You can find the current list, known as the Action Initiation List; at
The Regulatory Information Service Center and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have a Federal regulatory dashboard that allows users to view the Regulatory Agenda database (
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has no 610 reviews at this time. Anticipated future 610 reviews can be viewed at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given whether there
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit the RFA/SBREFA Web site at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
Keith Barnett, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, D243-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Mark Sendzik, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C-304.03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
David Cole, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, C404-05, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Lynn Vendinello, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2014 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501-4755.
Once implemented, the new GSAR transactional data reporting clauses will enable GSA to provide Federal agencies with further market intelligence and expert guidance in procuring goods and services in each category of GSA acquisition vehicles. The new requirement will not affect the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FSS contract holders.
GSA is interested in conducting a dialogue with industry and interested parties in Government about the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated February 23, 2015, “Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA expects that this summary information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory activity. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
SBA provides this notice under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 601 to 612 and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” which require each agency to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The Regulatory Agenda is a summary of all current and projected Agency rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last Regulatory Agenda. SBA's last Semiannual Regulatory Agenda was published on December 22, 2014, at 79 FR 76788. The Semiannual Agenda of the SBA conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Unified Agenda has been disseminated via the Internet. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The title for this rule has been changed since the rule was first reported in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013, from “Small Business Size Standards for Wholesale Trade” to “Small Business Size Standards: Employee Based Size Standards for Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade.” The title was changed to make it clear that the rule also addresses industries with employee based size standards in Retail Trade.
Please Note: The title for this rule has been changed since it was first announced in the Regulatory Agenda on January 8, 2013 to add the words or Retail Trade at the end of the previous title. This change makes it clear that industries in the retail trade with employee based size standards are also not addressed in the rule.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Hada Flowers, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or via telephone at 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
Abstract: DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a proposed rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation which implements Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, seeks to increase efficiency in the work performed by Federal contractors by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws designed to promote safe, healthy, fair and effective workplaces.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. The next agenda will be published in fall 2015 and will update this agenda through fall 2016. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of May 5, 2015.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its spring 2015 agenda as part of the Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The CFPB's participation in the Unified Agenda is voluntary. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the public at the following Web site:
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities.
The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016.
A major rulemaking priority for the Bureau continues to be the implementation of provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act addressing practices and information concerning the nation's mortgage markets. The Bureau has already issued regulations implementing Dodd-Frank Act protections for mortgage originations and servicing, and integrating various Federal mortgage disclosures as discussed further below. The Bureau is also working to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which augment existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications for such loans. In addition to obtaining data that is critical to the purposes of HMDA—which include providing the public and public officials with information that can be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, assisting public officials in the distribution of public sector investments, and assisting in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes—the Bureau views this rulemaking as an opportunity to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting in furtherance of its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden. The Bureau published a proposed HMDA rule in the
The Bureau is also working to support implementation of its final rule combining several Federal mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The project to integrate and streamline the disclosures was mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act, and is intended to increase consumer understanding of mortgage transactions and facilitate compliance by industry. The integrated forms are the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” initiative. The rule was issued in November 2013, and takes effect in August 2015. The Bureau is working intensively to support implementation efforts and prepare consumer education materials and initiatives to help consumers understand and use the new forms. In addition, the Bureau published in the
The Bureau is also working to support the full implementation of, and facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013, to strengthen consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. These rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, were all effective by January 2014. The Bureau is working diligently to monitor the market and plans to make clarifications and adjustments to the rules where warranted. The Bureau issued rules in fall 2014 to provide certain adjustments to its rules for certain nonprofit entities and to provide a cure mechanism for lenders seeking to make “qualified mortgages” under rules requiring assessment of consumers' ability to repay their mortgage loans where the mortgages exceed certain limitations on points and fees. The Bureau also published a proposal in the
The Bureau continues to work on and consider a number of rulemakings to address important consumer protection issues in other markets for consumer financial products and services.
First, in December 2014, the Bureau published in the
The Bureau is also considering rules to address consumer harms from practices related to payday loans and other similar credit products, including failure to determine whether consumers have the ability to repay without default or reborrowing and certain payment collection practices. This initiative builds on Bureau research, including a white paper the Bureau published on these products in April 2013, a data point providing additional research in March 2014, and ongoing analysis. The Bureau expects in spring 2015, to release an outline of proposals under consideration and to convene a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with small lenders who may be affected by the rulemaking. The Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later in 2015 after additional outreach and analysis.
Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also considering whether rules with regard to overdraft programs on checking accounts may be appropriate, and, if so, what types of rules would be appropriate. The CFPB issued a white paper in June 2013, and a report in July 2014, based on supervisory data from several large banks that highlighted a number of possible consumer protection concerns, including how consumers opt in to overdraft coverage for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, overdraft coverage limits, transaction posting order, overdraft and insufficient funds fee structure, and involuntary account closures. The CFPB is continuing to engage in additional research. A possible rulemaking might include disclosures or address specific acts or practices.
The Bureau is also engaged in research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on debt collection activities, which are the single largest source of complaints to the Federal government of any industry. Building on the Bureau's November 2013, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the CFPB is conducting a survey to obtain information from consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau is also undertaking consumer testing initiatives to determine what information would be useful for consumers to have about debt collection and their debts and how that information should be provided to them.
The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical consumer protection markets to help assess whether regulation may be warranted. For example, the Bureau issued a report to Congress in March 2015, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, concerning the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers in connection with the offer or providing of consumer financial products or services. The report expanded on preliminary results of arbitration research that had been released by the Bureau in December 2013. Following release of the report, the CFPB is considering whether rules governing pre-dispute arbitration agreements are warranted, and, if so, what types of rules would be appropriate.
The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities that will further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority. On October 8, 2014, the Bureau published in the
The Bureau is continuing work to consider opportunities to modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. This work includes implementing the consolidation and streamlining of Federal mortgage disclosure forms discussed earlier, and exploring opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden as part of the HMDA rulemaking.
Finally, the Bureau is continuing to assess timelines for other rulemakings mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act or inherited from other agencies and to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in fall 2015, to reflect the results of this further prioritization and planning.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before July 20, 2015.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” and be emailed to
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Eileen Williams, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish twice each year a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities. The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish twice each year a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the fall 2014 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 with respect to the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates subject to revision for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
In fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means of disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain, and new information and changes of circumstances or of law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for or the substance of any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.
In the Report and Order, the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a significant portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands (U/V Bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. This action serves to further address the Nation's growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote the ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution. At the same time, the approach helps preserve broadcast television as a healthy, viable medium and would be consistent with the general proposal set forth in the National Broadband Plan to repurpose spectrum from the U/V bands for new wireless broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to an incentive auction. This action is consistent with the recent enactment by Congress of new incentive auction authority for the Commission (Spectrum Act). Specifically, this item sets out a framework by which two or more television licensees may share a single six MHz channel in connection with an incentive auction. However, the Report and Order did not act on the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish fixed and mobile allocations in the U/V bands or to improve TV service on VHF channels. The Report and Order stated that the Commission will undertake a broader rulemaking to implement the Spectrum Act's provisions relating to an incentive auction for U/V band spectrum, and that
In the Report and Order (R&O), the Commission revised and streamlined its rules to modernize the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). The rules adopted in the R&O updated the ERS to a more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to provide an environment where creativity can thrive. To accomplish this transition, the Commission created three new types of ERS licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications industry. The Commission's actions also modified the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification. The Commission believes that these actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative problem-solving methodologies.
Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International, Inc., filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the
The Commission denied Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provides three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use.
The Commission stated in the Vehicular Radar R&O, “that no parties have come forward to support fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in this band,” and it decided not to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar use other than those for FOD detection applications at airport locations. Because Navtech first participated in the proceeding when it filed its petition well after the decision was published, its petition fails to meet the timeliness standard of Section 1.429(d).
In connection with the Commission's decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar).
In the 2014 review, the Commission incorporated the record of the 2010 review, and sought additional data on market conditions and competitive indicators. The Commission also sought comment on whether to eliminate restrictions on newspaper/radio combined ownership and whether to eliminate the radio/television cross-ownership rule in favor of reliance on the local radio rule and the local television rule.
In 2014, the Commission determined that for the purposes of applying the broadcast ownership rules, a brokered station will be attributed to a same market brokering station if the JSA covers more than 15 percent of the weekly advertising time of the brokered station. The Commission found that television JSAs have the potential to convey significant influence over stations operations.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. As directed by the court, the Commission considered a socially and economic disadvantaged business definition as a possible oasis for favorable regulatory treatment.
In the 2014 Report and Order, the Commission adopted a rule providing that it is a violation of the duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for a television station that is ranked among the top four stations to negotiate retransmission consent jointly with another such station if the stations are not commonly owned and serve the same geographic market.
On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Second Report and Order to provide a limited expansion of the types of entities eligible for a low power auxiliary station license under part 74 of its rules to include qualifying professional sound companies, as well as owners and operators of large venues, as further explained in the order. The Commission also (1) denied requests to expand eligibility under part 74 to include nuclear power plants, but modified a previous waiver concerning the operation of unlicensed low power auxiliary devices both inside and outside the plants; (2) adopted provisions to condition any new LPAS licenses on the requirement to cease operating in repurposed UHF spectrum in connection with the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-268 (FCC 14-50); and (3) provided newly eligible licensees with an initial and renewal license term not to exceed 10years.
The incentive auction will consist of a reverse auction” to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that will allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elect voluntarily to participate in the auction have three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air, share their spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the broad rules for the incentive auction. Consistent with past practice, in December 2014, a public notice was issued asking for comment specific key components related to implementing the June 2014 Report and Order. The public notice asking for comment will be followed by a public notice with the specific procedures about how to participate in the incentive auction. The start of the Incentive Auction is planned for early 2016.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding, —unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930-1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
On November 10, 2014, the FCC released a Report and Order (R&O) and a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to revise rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular Service. In the R&O, the FCC eliminated various regulatory requirements and streamlined requirements remaining in place, while retaining Cellular Service licensees' ability to expand into an area that is not yet licensed. In the FNPRM, the FCC proposes and seeks comment on additional Cellular Service reforms of licensing rules and the radiated power rules, to promote flexibility and help foster the deployment of newer technologies such as LTE.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On October 16, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on proposed methodology for Connect America Fund recipients to measure and report speed and latency performance to fixed locations.
On December 18, 2014, the Commission released a Report and Order finalizing decisions necessary to proceed to Phase II of the Connect America Fund.
On December 19, 2014, the Commission released a Second E-rate Modernization Order adjusting program rules and support levels in order to meet long-term program goals for high speed connectivity.
On January 30, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on the Alliance of Rural Broadband applicants petition for limited waiver of certain RBE letter of credit requirements.
On February 4, 2015, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comments on NTCA's emergency petition for limited waiver of RBE letter of credit bank eligibility requirements.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
In order to provide the best possible legal foundation for these rules, the Commission's Declaratory Ruling reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to title II of the Communications Act. Finally, in order to tailor title II to the 21st century broadband ecosystem, the Commission issued an Order forbearing from the majority of title II provisions, leaving in place a light-touch regime that will support regulatory action while simultaneously encouraging broadband investment, innovation, and deployment.
The Order requires that all broadband providers are required to be transparent by disclosing their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms. Fixed providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; they also may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. Mobile providers may not block access to lawful Web sites or applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. All providers may engage in “reasonable network management,” such as managing the network to address congestion or security issues. The rules do not prevent broadband providers from offering specialized services, such as facilities-based VoIP; do not prevent providers from blocking unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content; and do not supersede any obligation or authorization a provider may have to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities.
In January 2014, the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC struck down the no-blocking and no-discrimination rules contained in the 2010 Open Internet Order, for the second time invalidating the Commission's attempt to create legally enforceable standards to preserve the open Internet. Consequently, the docket has been closed and a new one opened, WC Docket No. 14-28.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period May 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015. The next agenda will be published in fall 2015.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted anytime during the next six months.
Comments should be addressed to Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its spring 2015 agenda as part of the Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, pre-rule stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second section, proposed rule stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, final rule stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. And a forth section, completed actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further.
A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda and which the Board has not completed.
Mark Buresh, Attorney, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Phone: 202 452-5270.
Thomas R. Boemio, Manager, Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, Phone: 202 452-2982.
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Chris Clubb, Special Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division,
Connie Horsley, Assistant Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation,
Anna Lee Hewko, Deputy Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing its semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which the NRC has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The NRC has completed 8 rulemaking activities since publication of its last Agenda on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76855). This issuance of the NRC's Agenda contains 35 active and 23 long-term rulemaking activities: 2 are Economically Significant; 10 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 53 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 1 is an Administrative rulemaking activity. In addition, 3 rulemaking activities impact small entities. The NRC is requesting comment on its rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by July 20, 2015.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0071 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Reginfo.gov:
○ For completed rulemaking activities, go to
○ For active rulemaking activities, go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Public Web site: Go to
• NRC's Public Document Room: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0071 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Agenda.
A “Regulation Identifier Number” or RIN is given to each rulemaking activity that the NRC has published or plans on publishing a
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on rulemaking activities since publication of the last NRC Agenda on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76855). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through March 23, 2015.
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the
A key part of the NRC's regulatory program is an annual review of all ongoing and potential rulemaking activities. In conjunction with its budget and long-term planning process, the NRC compiles a Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) listing to develop program budget estimates and to determine the relative priority of NRC rulemaking activities. The CPR process considers four factors and assigns a score to each factor. Factor A includes activities that support the NRC's Strategic Plan goals of ensuring the safe and secure use of radioactive materials. Factor B includes activities that support the Strategic Plan cross-cutting strategies of Regulatory Effectiveness and Openness. Specifically, this factor considers whether the rulemaking activity enhances regulatory effectiveness and/or openness in the way that the NRC conducts regulatory activities. Factor C is a governmental factor representing interest to the NRC, Congress, or other governmental bodies. Factor D is an external factor representing interest to members of the public, non-governmental organizations, the nuclear industry, vendors, and suppliers. The overall priority is determined by adding the factor scores together for each rulemaking activity.
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The NRC recently requested public comment on its rulemaking activities as identified in its Agenda and has received comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NEI commented on the detail provided in the abstract for each rulemaking activity. Specifically, NEI suggested that the NRC: (1) Communicate the rational for determining what rulemaking activities are reported in the Agenda; (2) provide clear and complete target dates for completing a rulemaking activity; (3) provide a status for rulemaking activities that have become dormant; (4) remove rulemaking activities that are no longer being pursued; and (5) include the category of NRC licensee impacted by a particular rulemaking activity.
In addition, NEI commented on the process the NRC uses to prioritize its rulemaking activities. The NEI suggested that the NRC: (1) Use a risk-informed prioritization methodology; (2) consider eliminating CPR Factor B from its methodology; (3) report the scores from its prioritization process in the Agenda for each rulemaking activity; (4) revise its methodology to incorporate review criteria that enables greater discrimination among rulemaking activities; and (5) include cumulative impact in rulemaking plans for Commission approval and in NRC's prioritization methodology.
The NRC actively seeks to improve its rulemaking process and reporting, and is currently engaged in a process improvement initiative that would implement most of NEI's suggestions related to rulemaking reporting. Each year the NRC reviews its methodology for prioritizing rulemaking activities to determine if changes are necessary. The methodology was recently updated to reflect the NRC's Fiscal Year 2014—2018 Strategic Plan (79 FR 55833; September 17, 2014); the NRC will consider NEI's suggestions upon its next review of the prioritization methodology.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the chair's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2015 reflect only the priorities of the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on March 24, 2015, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before July 20, 2015.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Anne Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5019.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
| 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 |